3

Diplomacy

Editor

Asst.Prof.Dr. Erhan AKDEMİR

Authors

CHAPTER 1 Dr. Utku ÖZER

CHAPTER 2
Asst.Prof.Dr. Fulya EREKER

CHAPTER 3, 8
Asst.Prof.Dr. Burak Toygar HALİSTOPRAK

CHAPTER 4, 5
Asst.Prof.Dr. Murat KASAPSARAÇOĞLU

CHAPTER 6, 7
Prof. Dr. Tarık OĞUZLU
 T.C. ANADOLU UNIVERSITY PUBLICATION NO: 3711
OPEN EDUCATION FACULTY PUBLICATION NO: 2530

Copyright © 2018 by Anadolu University

All rights reserved.
This publication is designed and produced based on “Distance Teaching” techniques. No part of this
book may be reproduced or stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means
of mechanical, electronic, photocopy, magnetic tape, or otherwise, without the written permission of
Anadolu University.

Graphic and Cover Design

Prof.Dr. Halit Turgay Ünalan

Graphic Designer
Ayşegül Dibek

Typesetting and Composition

Gül Kaya
Selin Çakır
Elif Erken
Arzu Ercanlar
Burcu Vurucu
Yasin Narin
Gülşah Sokum
Burak Arslan
Sinem Yüksel

DIPLOMACY

E-ISBN
978-975-06-3389-8

All rights of this book belong to Anadolu University.

Eskişehir, Republic of Turkey, February 2019
3199-0-0-0-1809-V01
 Contents

Definition and The Historical

CHAPTER 1 Importance of
Diplomacy
Introduction.................................................... 3
What is Diplomacy?....................................... 3
Defining Diplomacy: Actors, Tasks,
Scope...................................................... 3
Theories of Diplomacy........................... 7
Diplomatic Relations . ................................... 13
Diplomacy Between States................... 13
Great Power Diplomacy........................ 15
Middle Power Diplomacy...................... 15
Small State Diplomacy........................... 16
Diplomacy of Non-State Actors........... 17
Types of Diplomacy . ..................................... 17
Secret Diplomacy................................... 17
Conference and Summit Diplomacies.. 18
Coercive Diplomacy............................... 19
Crisis Diplomacy..................................... 20
Track Two Diplomacy and Multi-Track
Diplomacy............................................... 20
Economic Diplomacy............................. 22
Public Diplomacy................................... 23
Digital Diplomacy.................................. 24
Evolution of
CHAPTER 2 Diplomacy: First
Practices
Introduction.................................................... 37
Ancİent Dİplomacy......................................... 37
The Beginning of Institutional
Diplomatic Practice: Mesopotamian
Diplomacy............................................... 37
Ancient China......................................... 42
Ancient India.......................................... 44
Alliances as a Means of Diplomacy:
Diplomacy in Ancient Greece .............. 45
The Roman World and the Use of
Diplomacy............................................... 47
Medieval Diplomacy...................................... 49
Masters of Diplomacy: The Byzantine
Empire . .................................................. 49
Diplomacy in the Early Islamic World... 51

Historical Evolution Ottoman

of Diplomacy:
Diplomacy and
CHAPTER 3 Transition to CHAPTER 4 Diplomatic
Permanent
Diplomacy Letters
Introduction ................................................... 63 Introduction.................................................... 87
Diplomacy in the ‘Old World’: Ad Hoc Ottoman Diplomacy 1299-1793....... 88
From Ancient Times to Renaissance . .......... 64 Permanent Ottoman Diplomacy 1793-1922... 94
Italian City States and Renaissance Ottoman Heritage in the Republican
Diplomacy ...................................................... 66 Diplomacy....................................................... 100
Old Diplomacy ............................................... 68
Transition to Permanent Diplomacy ........... 70
Professionalization and Recruitment... 71
Administrative Structuration and
Hierarchy................................................ 72
Emergence of Ministries of Foreign
Affairs . ................................................... 73
New Diplomacy ............................................. 74

iii
 Instruments
and Institutions Diplomacy of
CHAPTER 5 CHAPTER 6 the Republic of
of Modern
Turkey
Diplomacy
Introduction . ................................................. 109 Introduction.................................................... 135
Origins and Evolution of Modern Diplomacy... 109 Theorizing Turkish Diplomacy and
Instruments of Modern Diplomacy.............. 111 Foreign Policy................................................. 135
Institutions of Modern Diplomacy............... 118 Structural Factors ................................. 135
Temporal and Conjectural Factors....... 139
Actors, Processes and Tools of
Turkish Diplomacy......................................... 141
Turkey’s Relations With Nato as a
Case Study....................................................... 143
The Cold War Period.............................. 143
Post-Cold War Period: New
Definitions of Interests and
Identity .................................................. 144
Conclusion....................................................... 147

Practice of
Diplomacy Diplomacy:
CHAPTER 7 Practices of CHAPTER 8 Negotiation,
Mediation and
Global Powers Diplomatic
Agreement
Introduction . ................................................. 157 Introduction.................................................... 181
Theoretical Analysis of Global Powers’ Negotiation..................................................... 181
Diplomacy....................................................... 157 Mediation........................................................ 186
Diplomacy of the United States.................... 158 Diplomatic Agreement................................... 189
Diplomacy of the European Union............... 162
Diplomacy of China........................................ 165
Diplomacy of Russia....................................... 169
Conclusion....................................................... 172

iv
Preface

Dear Students,
This book aims to inform international students about the definition of the concept of diplomacy
which is the one of the most important concepts of international relations discipline, and its
importance of evolution in the historical process and the practices of today. In this context,
knowing of the basic role and validity of the diplomacy will make an important contribution to the
analysis of relations between the state-state and the state-state actors in international politics.
Especially today, the existence and the role of the diplomacy is equally valued, as the concepts
of global governance and interdependence are accepted among the actors in the international
politics. From this point of view, diplomacy, which can be influenced from actors in global politics
to regional powers, from non-state actors to public bodies, is a mechanism that enables states,
societies and individuals to live in peace. If we take into account that diplomacy is the most
fundamental means of foreign policy that shows that international relations can be the history of
peace, not just war, we can say that the need for diplomacy is growing steadilyin today.
Our book consists of eight chapters. Our authors in this book that of the International Relations
(English) Undergraduate Program at Anadolu University have dealt with the concept of diplomacy in
a wide range of historical developments, from the first diplomatic methods applied in history to today’s
diplomatic practices. In this framework, the first chapter of the book emphasizes the definition and the
significance of the concept of diplomacy. The first chapter also covered the theoretical framework of
international diplomacy, the different types of diplomacy and the diplomatic relations and diplomatic
practices between actors in today’s international relations. Within this historical development,
different types of diplomacy have been included in this chapter. The second chapter also focuses on
the historical development of the diplomacy. In this context, the practices of diplomacy in antiquity
and medieval period are discussed in detail. Being aware of the emergence of first diplomatic practices
and conveying the development of different diplomatic practices in different civilizations for centuries
has been the main objective of this chapter. The first diplomatic practices from ancient Mesopotamian
civilizations to ancient China, from ancient India to ancient Greece, were handled in detail in this
chapter. The second chapter also examined medieval diplomacy. Within this context, diplomatic
practices in the Islamic world and the Byzantine Empire have been examined. The third chapter of
the book deals with the process of transition to permanent diplomatic practices. In this context, it
follows the roots of modern diplomacy from the ancient times up to the Renaissance. The emergence
of certain diplomatic practices, such as the embassies of the Italian city states, has been examined in
the unit. The main aspects of diplomatic practices between the 1648 Westphalian Peace Treaty and
the Vienna Congress were examined. The chapte also includes modern diplomatic practices, deals
with the emergence of modern diplomatic missions and foreign ministries. This chapter also made
the classification of different aspects of contemporary diplomacy in the late 20th and 21st centuries.
The fourth chapter is about the Ottoman diplomatic and diplomatic correspondence. In this context,
the chapter was first described in terms of both temporary and permanent diplomatic practices of the
instruments and institutions of Ottoman diplomacy. The fifth chapter of the book is about the tools
and institutions of the modern diplomacy. In this context, the development of the modern diplomacy
analyzed firstly. Later on, modern diplomacy tools such as bilateral diplomacy, multilateral diplomacy
and top diplomacy were explained. It also analyzed modern diplomatic institutions such as the Ministry
of Foreign Affairs, diplomatic missions and non-state actors inthis chapter. The title of the sixth chapter
is Diplomacy of the Republic of Turkey. This unit has been included in the actors, processes and means
of Turkish diplomacy. The unit was enriched with examples from Turkish diplomacy. The 7th Unit
of the book is devoted to the diplomacy of global powers. Diplomacy practices of global powers are
analyzed from a theoretical point of view in this chapter. Later, diplomatic practices of major global
powers such as the United States, the European Union, China and Russia were discussed. The last part
of the book contains examples of concrete diplomacy practices. In this context, firstly the concepts
of negotiation, mediation and diplomatic agreement are explained. Then the content of international
negotiations, mediation practices and the emergence of diplomatic agreements were analyzed.
I would like to thank the authors Prof. Dr. Tarık Oğuzlu (Antalya Bilim Üniversitesi), Asst. Prof.
Dr. Fulya Ereker (Altınbaş Üniversitesi), Asst. Prof. Dr. Burak Toygar Halistoprak (Antalya Bilim
Üniversitesi), Asst. Prof. Dr. Murat Kasapsaraçoğlu (Antalya Bilim Üniversitesi) and Dr. Utku
Özer’e (Panteion Üniversitesi) who have made great efforts in the emergence of this course book
which is prepared by considering the principles and targets of distance learning.

Editor
Asst.Prof.Dr. Erhan AKDEMİR

v
 Definition and Importance
Chapter 1 of Diplomacy
After completing this chapter you will be able to:

1 2
Learning Outcomes

Define diplomacy and describe its scope, Review the theoretical framework of
actors and functions international diplomacy

3 Analyse and compare the diplomatic relations

of different actors 4 Differentiate and describe different types of
diplomatic engagement

Chapter Outline Key Terms

Introduction • Old Diplomacy-New • Polylateral
What is Diplomacy? Diplomacy Diplomacy
Diplomatic Relations • Diplomatic Agents • Secret Diplomacy
Types of Diplomacy • Diplomatic Theories • Open Diplomacy
• Diplomatic • Conference
Engagement Diplomacy
• Great Power • Summit Diplomacy
Diplomacy • Coercive Diplomacy
• Middle Power • Crisis Diplomacy
Diplomacy • Track-Two Diplomacy
• Small Power • Multitrack Diplomacy
Diplomacy • Economic
• Bilateral Diplomacy Diplomacy
• Multilateral • Public Diplomacy
Diplomacy • Digital Diplomacy

2

Diplomacy
INTRODUCTION
Diplomacy has a very long history through
which it changed in terms of practice and content
and diversified. This is an important indicator that
there has been a constant need for diplomacy and
that diplomacy, evolving and adjusting itself to
changing international conditions, has never lost
its significance. A useful tool that helps seize this
significance is to examine the different definitions
of diplomacy, which are derived from the theory
and practice of diplomacy. This would also provide
the framework for examining the scope, actors and
tasks of diplomacy, which could be followed by
different kinds of diplomatic engagement and the
methods used in modern diplomacy.
WHAT İS DIPLOMACY?
Martin Wight refers to diplomacy as the
“master-institution of international relations.”
(Wight, 2002, 113) Diplomacy does indeed fulfils
an important role in the conduct of interstate
relations as well as handling of international issues.
Defining diplomacy in terms of this role give also
clues about the scope, actors and tasks of diplomacy
and helps understand the significance of the role it
plays in international relations.
Figure 1.1
Defining Diplomacy: Actors, Tasks,
Scope
Etymologically speaking diplomacy comes
from the combination of Greek word diploma
(δίπλωμα), meaning something folded in two, a
paper, in this case, which gives certain privileges to
its holder. Making a precise and agreed definition
of diplomacy in the moderns sense is not possible.
1
Oxford English Dictionary defines diplomacy as
the “The profession, activity, or skill of managing
international relations, typically by a country’s
representatives abroad.” More detailed definitions
are made by scholars who provide a significant
literature on diplomacy. Therefore it is possible
to find different definitions focusing on different
aspects of diplomacy. Some of these definitions are
as follows:
internet
https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/
diplomacy
‘Diplomacy is the application of intelligence
and tact to the conduct of official relations between
the governments of independent states, extending
sometimes also to their relations with vassal states;
or, more briefly still, the conduct of business
between states by peaceful means’ (Satow, 1932, 1).
‘Diplomacy is the management of international
relations by negotiation; the method by which these
relations are adjusted and managed by ambassadors
and envoys; the business or art of the diplomatist’
(Harold Nicolson, 1969, 15).
“[Diplomacy is] the conduct of relations
between states and other entities with standing in
world politics by official agents and by peaceful
means, such conduct of relations by professional
diplomatists and such conduct of relations between
states that is carried out in a manner […] that is,
tactful or subtle.” (Hedley Bull, 1977, 162).
‘Diplomacy is concerned with the management
of relations between states and other actors. From
a state perspective diplomacy is concerned with
advising, shaping and implementing foreign policy.
As such it is the means by which states through their
formal and other representatives, as well as other
actors, articulate, coordinate and secure particular
or wider interests, using correspondence, private
talks, exchanges of view, lobbying, visits, threats
and other related activities.’ (Barston, 2013, 1).
“Diplomacy is an essentially political activity
and, well-resourced and skilful, a major ingredient
of power. Its chief purpose is to enable states to
secure the objectives of their foreign policies without
resort to force, propaganda, or law. It follows that
3
1
diplomacy consists of communication between
officials designed to promote foreign policy either
by formal agreement or tacit adjustment.” (G. R.
Berridge, 2010: 1)
Diplomacy is ‘the peaceful conduct of relations
amongst political entities, their principals and
accredited agents’ (Hamilton and Langhorne,
2010, 1).
“Diplomacy is conventionally understood as
the processes and institutions by which the interests
and identities of sovereign states are represented to
one another.” (Devetak et.al., 2012, 257)
Analysing these different definitions of
diplomacy helps us deduct the actors, tools and
the scope of diplomacy as well as the tasks carried
out by it and consequently to the important role
it plays in international relations. They all point
out certain aspects of diplomacy. None of them
can be deemed wrong or should be accepted as
the precise definition of diplomacy. Therefore
instead of focusing on the definition it is more
useful to comprehend the scope, actors and
functions of diplomacy, which are the sources of
these definitions. These can be deducted from the
Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations of
1961 which draws the framework of diplomatic
relations. But this is a very limited framework
that does not cover all the aspects of diplomacy,
especially those that have transformed diplomacy
in the late twentieth century. Therefore even
though it can be taken a starting point, the study
of diplomacy should not content itself with the
Convention.
internet
http://legal.un.org/ilc/texts/instruments/
english/conventions/9_1_1961.pdf
Scope: The first thing that has to be defined
would be the scope of diplomacy since the other
elements such as actors and tasks could only be
determined according to how broad the scope is
defined. When the term is taken in a narrow sense
it usually describes political relations between states
and includes the practices of the diplomats and
ministries of foreign affairs. That is why history
of international relations between states is defined
4
Definition and Importance of Diplomacy
as diplomatic history. On the most extreme side
of this approach is to reduce diplomacy to the
mechanical conduct of foreign relations through
diplomatic representatives. Another point that
should be made clear is if diplomacy and foreign
policy are the same things as the two concepts
are often confused. According to this approach
diplomacy does not exist apart form foreign policy.
This means that there is no interaction between
diplomacy and foreign policy and that diplomacy is
a mere tool. Defining diplomacy as an instrument
of foreign policy is not incorrect but is incomplete.
In modern international relations it is no longer
possible to define diplomacy only in terms of
foreign policy or political relations between states
that is carried out by statesmen and diplomats.
The scope of diplomacy has expanded through the
course of history. (Chapters 2-3) In several periods
in history the scope of diplomacy has become a
matter of discussion among the theoreticians and
practitioners of diplomacy. Many have mentioned
and accepted that there was old diplomacy and a
new diplomacy. This points to the evolving character
of diplomacy. Each era has a new diplomacy of its
own. This is especially true for the twenty-first
cenr-tury. For this reason it is necessary to adopt a
broader approach. The broader definition does not
exclude the narrow definition and the functions
that are derived from that definition. But it also
does not approach diplomacy as an entirely political
conceptualisation. Instead it includes many other
aspects of international intercourse like economic
and social relations within the scope of diplomacy.
This is mainly due to internationalisation of many
issues that were previously considered as a part of
domestic policy. Human rights, health, terror or
environment can no longer be seen from a local
perspective. They have become the concern of
international society. This phenomenon has been
furthered with the technological developments
and increasing mobility of people. Therefore
new issues have entered into diplomatic agenda
and consequently the content of diplomacy has
extended considerably. Diversification of actors is
an indicator of this change.
Actors: Whether we accept the broad definition
or the narrow one, we see certain actors acting on
behalf of some other entity. But the questions of
who these actors are and on whose behalf they are
acting is answered depending on the scope that is

Diplomacy
accepted. The main actors of diplomacy, as it is
traditionally accepted regardless of its scope, are
foreign ministers along with other employees of
the ministry and the diplomatic agents in foreign
countries, that is the head of mission and members
of the diplomatic staff of the mission.On the other
hand, when diplomacy is described in the broad
sense, the actors it involves widens significantly. In
recent years it is also possible to say that the visa
versa is true as well. As new actors come to take part
in and influence international relations they also
widen the scope of diplomacy. Which one comes
before the other is a minor question compared
to the fact that both the scope and the actors of
diplomacy have extended in a way to include what
can be called globalised societies.
The actor diversification in diplomacy is closely
related to rapid globalisation. There are many issues
that cannot be solved with the attempts of single
states anymore. Environmental issues, terrorism,
immigration, humanitarian issues and many
others need the cooperation of different states
and sometimes the international community as a
whole. Since it is not in the capacity of diplomats
to cover all these issues that in many cases
require specialisation, other ministries, specialists
and advisors get involved in the diplomatic
processes, which brings a great diversification of
actors. But it is not only other state officials who
become involved in diplomacy. Many non-state
actors have also come to take part in diplomatic
matters. NGOs, private companies, corporations,
foundations, professional groups, social groups and
even individuals can become diplomatic actors.
Technological developments, especially those in
communication and transportation technologies,
have made it easier for these actors to take part in
diplomatic relations.
The same technological developments have also
increased the role of political leaders as actors of
diplomacy. For a very long time now, it is possible
for leaders to be informed about the developments
immediately and give directions accordingly.
Political leaders also have to chance to communicate
directly, and often do via phone calls which have
been popular among the politicians since the Cold
War. Many leaders also communicate through text
messages, even during the summits and conferences
as means of fast direct communication that by-pass
the long diplomatic procedures. They also meet
1
more often through mutual visits or the summits.
While other government officials and advisors
become more decisive in diplomatic relations
along with the heads of government or state in
this process, the role of professional diplomats and
even foreign ministers has relatively diminished.
These people in many occasions find themselves
in difficult situations because of being bypassed
or not informed in matters that are in their work
definition. The increase in the role of political
leaders is closely related to the domestication of
foreign policy, meaning that that foreign policy
issues are becoming matters of domestic politics.
This in turn has an impact on the voting behaviours
of people and increase their role and influence
turning them also into determinate in diplomacy.
Functions: According to the Article 3 of
Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, the
functions of a diplomatic mission are representing
the sending state in the receiving state, protecting
in the receiving state the interests of the sending
state and of its nationals, within the limits
permitted by international law, negotiating with
the government of the receiving state, ascertaining
by all lawful means conditions and developments
in the receiving State, and reporting thereon to the
government of the sending state and promoting
friendly relations between the sending state and
the receiving state, and developing their economic,
cultural and scientific relations.
The most important function of
diplomacy, regardless of its scope or its actors,
is communication. In a sense diplomacy is
communication itself. Without communication
there would be no international relations. What
is expected with diplomatic communication is the
establishment and maintenance of good relations
based confidence and trust among the actors of
international community, avoid hostility and
resolve conflicts. An important aspect of diplomatic
communication in this context is negotiations. (See
Chapter 8) In the international arena, dominated
by sovereign states, negotiation is the primary and
predominant mode of reaching joint decisions.
(Jönsson, 2002, 291) These joint decisions have
to be based on common or compromised interests
of states. It is diplomacy that finds or builds this
base through negotiations. For any communicative
function of diplomacy, including negotiations,
skills and experience of the diplomats are of crucial
5
1
importance. As the scope of diplomacy enlarges,
the communication task of diplomacy enlarges
as well to include the communication among the
other actors of diplomacy.
Another major function of diplomacy
is representation. The main instrument of
representation is embassies and its main actors
are ambassadors, consulates, attaches and
other diplomatic personnel. Representation
can take several facets. Symbolic or ceremonial
representation is one those. Having embassies in
foreign countries and international organisations
are considered important elements of state
sovereignty and recognition in international
community. Also the number of diplomatic
representatives in foreign states is considered a
sign of international prestige. The decision to open
embassies is influenced by several factors. Having
representatives in major powers, allies, strategic
or economic partners or strategic and economic
interests that require developed relations, balance,
reciprocity and universality - both for the states
that pursue a world policy and those that are newly
established - diasporas, and economic capacities
are among the reasons that motivate to establish
embassies. (Barston, 2013, 23-4) Not all states have
embassies in the states the they have diplomatic
relations. Sometimes they carry out relations
through other means or countries. For this reason
representation does not only mean symbolic or
ceremonial representation. Diplomatic agents
present the stance and interests of their states in
the receiving states and many other functions of
diplomacy, monitoring, information gathering,
protection of citizens and development of relations
are all related to this kind of representation.
Monitoring the receiving state is one of
the oldest functions of diplomacy. The aim of
monitoring is to gather information about the
receiving state and report this information to the
sending state. Each state wants to gather as much
information as they can, and provide only selective
or manipulated information about themselves
and keep the rest unrevealed. In the days that the
information technology was not so developed
diplomatic reports would constitute the main
source information. But today, diplomatic reports
are only one of resources of gathering information
and not even considered the most efficient one.
There are different methods of monitoring and
6
Definition and Importance of Diplomacy
gathering information. Gathering intelligence
secretly or through intelligence agencies are among
these ways. But these cannot be listed among
the functions of diplomacy. When we talk about
monitoring and information gathering within the
context of diplomacy, we mean the public and
official ways of doing so.
The informative function of diplomacy is not
one sided and the diplomats are also responsible
for providing information about their state and its
policies to the government of the receiving state.
They explain or at times may have to defend their
state as part of their mission. This task becomes
especially important during times of crises or
conflict. At this times it is the expected duty of
diplomacy to reduce the tension, provide a clear
flow of information between the sides and bring
solutions to the conflict. For this reason the
communicative skills are crucial in the world of
diplomacy.
Protection of citizens of the sending state is an
other function of diplomacy. This is a very narrow
sense of diplomacy but is one of the traditional
functions of diplomacy that has not lost its
significance. On the contrary, the protection of
citizens has become even more important as the
mobility of people has increased considerably.
People now travel more, work and live abroad
more and consequently need the assistance and
protection of their states more. Besides many
people are affected by international conflicts, in
which case the diplomatic missions are again called
into duty.
Another function of diplomacy is described as
“contribution to international order.” This function
refers to “the creation, drafting and amendment of
a wide variety of international rules of a normative
and regulatory kind that provide structure in
the international system” and contribute “to the
creation of universal rules.” (Barston, 2013, 3)
Taking into account all these tasks, diplomacy
proves that it has not lost its significance. On the
contrary, the important role it carries has forced
it to develop new means, widen its scope, include
new actors and diversify its tools. For this reason, as
Devetak et. al. points out we can imagine a future
without the state, but we cannot imagine any future
without diplomacy. (Devetak et.al.:2012: 266)
 1
Diplomacy

Theories of Diplomacy which might well involve sabotaging the activities of

In order to understand the essence of diplomacy, diplomatic rivals; to submit advice on policy to his
its theory has to be studied too, as well its practice. own prince, and at all costs defend his own prince’s
With the emergence of the modern state system, reputation; to engage in formal negotiations, and
political thinkers, diplomats, statesmen, jurists to obtain information and reporting it home;
began to write about the theory of diplomacy, including prediction of future developments using
mostly in the sense that refers to interstate his of judgement. (Berridge, 2001a, 16-19) As can
relations. As the international system evolved, the be seen these are still defined among the tasks of
theories of diplomacy have also diversified. In the diplomats in modern international relations, with
20th century diplomatic theory came to be studied little or no difference at all. Machiavelli warns the
along with international relations theory. Price about the deceptive nature of diplomacy is
conducted and advices him not hesitate to use the
methods in foreign relations. But he does not mean
Early Diplomatic Theories that states cannot conduct reliable relations. This
It is generally accepted that modern diplomacy depends on the state system; republics, according
practices the started in Italy. As early practices to Machiavelli, are more reliable than principalities
of diplomacy started in Italy, early theories of when it comes agreements they did with other
diplomacy were also formulated there. One of states because they have more moral virtue since
the earlier of these theories belongs to Nicollo their governments need to be responsive to the
Machiavelli. Machiavelli’s formulation of people, have more respect for law in general, their
diplomacy is based on his experience of serving as officials are of better quality and their constitutions
diplomat of Florence, his home city, until the fall require the reconciliation of divergent views, which
of the republic in Florence in 1512. During his makes their decision-making simply much slower.
career Machiavelli took part in the foreign relations (Berridge, 2001a, 14)
of Florence with both other Italian city-states and
foreign countries. His theory of diplomacy can be
read through his works The Prince, The Discourses
on the First Ten Books of Titus Livy and The History
of Florence. Diplomacy, according to Machiavelli,
must be permanent, in the sense that states should
have diplomatic representatives, at least in those
countries that they have high interests whether they
are allies or enemies. Still even though he himself
was a diplomat, Machiavelli believed that military
power was more important than diplomacy. But
because not all states had enough military power
to pursue their aims, they needed diplomacy.
Diplomacy according to Machiavelli is based on
deception. This assumption of diplomacy is closely
related to Machiavelli’s conception of human
nature which he defines as “For it can be said about
men in general that they are ungrateful, fickle,
dissembling, hypocritical, cowardly, and greedy.”
Therefore the diplomat can use deceptions, tricks
and schemes in order to maximise the state’s interest
in its relations with other states. The diplomat’s
duties according to Machiavelli, is to encourage the
prince to whom he is accredited to pursue policies
congenial to the interests of his own prince, and Figure 1.2 The cover of he Discourses on the First Ten
to refuse to contemplate policies hostile to them, Books of Titus Livy

7
1
Definition and Importance of Diplomacy

Another Florentine diplomat who has

contributed to the theory of diplomacy is Francesco
Guicciardini. The main theme in Guicciardini’s
theory, which is generally outlined in his History
of Italy, is the value of good ambassadors, which he
sees as a source of prestige for the price. According
to him a well trained, qualified ambassador is a
sign of value of the prince as well and should be
rewarded. He also draws attention to the relation
between the prince and the ambassador and says
that the prince should share his aims with the
ambassador and not keep secrets from him for
the sake of his mission. If the ambassador knows
what the prince wants, he will pursue it to the end.
Besides if the secrets kept from the ambassador
are to be revealed, this would harm the credibility
of the ambassador towards other states. What
is significant about Guicciardini’s theory is that
information flow between diplomats and political
leaders is still an issue that is discussed in modern
diplomacy. As mentioned before, political leaders
tend to take control of the diplomatic relations
since 19th century and have been pushing
diplomats aside gradually. This has been furthered Figure 1.3 Cover of History of Italy
especially after the communication technologies
have made instant communication between leaders Another contributor of the diplomatic theory
possible. In this case many leaders do not feel the is Hugo Grotius, who is a great opponent of
need to inform their diplomats and consequently war and deems it acceptable when it is just, and
they may find themselves in difficult positions. for this reason according to him diplomacy has
Guicciardini has pointed out the harm this could a vital role. His work Three Books On the Law of
make to their prestige and the state prestige almost War and Peace is the reflection of this approach.
five hundred years ago. Another diplomatic issue He defines three methods to accommodate
that Guicciardini dwells upon is conditions and misunderstandings among states without a war.
methods to be employed in negotiations between (Grotius, 1121-1127) The first of these methods
states. The first thing states should be careful about is the conference method. The second method is
negotiations is that timing should be right, it should arbitration between parties who do not belong to
not be premature, which would make successful the same jurisdiction and have no common judge
negotiations impossible. Once the negotiations to appeal to, which he considers to be not only
start on the right time, the states should not reveal convenient but necessary that “Congresses of
the end that they pursue, in order to finally reach Christian states were held, where, by them who
this end, or at least close to it, as a result of the are no ways interested on one side or other, the
negotiations. However it may be inevitable for differences of contending parties might be made
one or both sides to make compromises since it is up; and that some means were thought upon to
in the nature of negotiations to comprise if states oblige the parties at variance to accept of a peace
want to reach an agreement. Having compromised upon fair and reasonable terms.” What Grotius has
or any other reason should not be an excuse for suggested is still an important method of conflict
noncompliance and according to Guicciardini and resolution in international relations and considered
the agreements that are issued after negotiations, as one of the main functions of diplomacy. The
considered as a promise, should be kept. third and the last method to prevent war according
to Grotius is to cast lots. Another diplomatic issue

8
 1
Diplomacy

in Grotius’s theory is related to diplomatic representation, which

he sees as an attribute of sovereignty. As mentioned before also in
modern diplomacy having diplomatic missions in other countries
or international organisations are considered a clear sign of state
sovereignty. According Grotius having established ambassadors may
only be employed by rulers with sovereign powers in their relations
with similar rulers. Once diplomatic representation is established and
ambassadors arrive they should have - in today’s terms - diplomatic
privileges and immunity. According to Grotious the safety of the
ambassadors would not be provided if they were to give an account
of their actions according to the laws of the receiving state, since
reasons of the sending state and receiving state would be different and
even contrary, in which case there could be occasions that the actions
of the ambassador may look criminal according to one state and not
criminal according to the other. (Grotius, 910-911) Their suite and
property were also within the scope of this immunity according to
Grotius. This way Grotius also lays the ground for one of the essential
Figure 1.4 GUgo Grotius elements for modern diplomacy, without which diplomats could not
work efficiently. Another point in Grotius’ theory about diplomatic
representation is the cases in which states may refuse to accept an ambassador of a certain state. First of
all the state may not want to receive a diplomat from a state it considers as enemy or wicked. The second
case may be the rejection of the person that is sent by a state due to his beliefs or his character. The last
reason for objecting an ambassador would be the suspicion that he is sent for some reason that could
damage the receiving state’s interests. These also have become practices of modern diplomacy and states
can refuse to receive diplomats on certain grounds or may just ask them to leave in some cases if they
have already been received.
French statesmen Richelieu has also formulated ideas on diplomacy. His theory of diplomacy can be
derived from his Political Testament, in which he has penned political advice for Louis XIII. Having become
the French prime minister in an age of continuous wars, Richelieu’s
main concern was to establish peace and carry out peaceful relations
with other states. For this reason he attributed great significance to
diplomacy. The main theme of Richelieu’s theory is negotiations.
According to Richelieu negotiations must be continuous and directed
by a single person - the foreign minister - otherwise they would not be
successful or effective. “He who negotiates continuously” he says “will
finally find the right instant to attain his ends.” (Richelieu:95) The
idea of permanent diplomacy headed by the ministers of foreign affairs
would come to dominate diplomacy in the next centuries and is still
considered the core of diplomacy. The appointment of public offices
of the ministry and ambassadors is a crucial task in Richelieu’s theory
since the whole conduct of foreign policy is reserved to them. Their
actions would be binding for their monarch that they are acting on
behalf of. According to Richelieu any agreement that is reached at the
end of negotiations should be applied by all parties, since otherwise
the reputation and the power of the monarch would be questioned by
others. In his words “I maintain that loss of honour is worse then the
loss of life itself…. A great prince should sooner put in jeopardy both
his own interests and even those of the state than break his word, which
Figure 1.5 The cover of Political he can never violate without losing his reputation and by consequence
Testament the greatest instrument of sovereigns.” (Richelieu,102) Richelieu also

9
1
Definition and Importance of Diplomacy

dwells upon the issue of leagues, which he describes

as fruitful but still warns against them stating that a
great prince should not “embark voluntarily on the
founding of a league designed for some difficult
objective unless he is strong enough to carry it
out alone should his allies decide to desert him” as
he believes that unions are never too secure when
headed by several sovereigns. (Richelieu,101)

Diplomatic Theories and International

Relations
The first significant diplomatic writer of the
twentieth century is Ernest Satow. Satow owes
his reputation in diplomatic theory to his book
Guide to Diplomatic Practice, which was the first
remarkable book in English language about the
theory and practice of diplomacy when it was
published in 1917. It is a comprehensive study
which covers not only the roles and functioning of Figure 1.6 The Cover of Guide to Diplomatic Practice
diplomatic institutions and actors but also gives a
Satow viewed diplomacy as a highly specialised
historical account of diplomacy. Satow’s novelty lies
activity, subject only to its own rules and principles
in the fact that his concept of diplomacy was wider
and hence believed that even though diplomatic
than that of other nineteenth-century writers as he
manners and techniques may change with time,
placed diplomatic activity into a wider, political
the essence of sound diplomacy does not. (Otte,
context. (Otte, 2001a, 139) He studies diplomatic
2001a,131) He mentions in this context that
tradition, international politics and diplomacy as
due to the opportunity of faster communication
an instrument of statecraft as a whole. Diplomatic
through telegram the diplomatic methods are “less
relations were to be regulated by international law,
subtle and tortuous” … (Satow, 1932, 87) putting
which equalises states. But in practice international
forward a phenomena - the communication
community is not based on equality according
revolution - that still transforms diplomacy in
to Satow and Great Powers, which dominate the
the twenty-first century. In any case a diplomatist
international society with predominant military
according to Satow must be on his guard to protect
and naval power, should act as a committee that
the dignity of the state which he presents. In terms
could be called into action in case a minor state
of diplomatic representation Satow says that “every
does nor comply with the concert of Europe. He
recognised independent state is held to be entitled
sees congresses and conferences as means of Great
to send diplomatic agents to represent its interests
Power politics. Even though he attributes great
in other states, and reciprocally to receive such
significance to diplomacy and international law
agents.” (Satow, 1932, 110) These agents carry out
in interstate relations, Satow also believes that
important roles, which Satow describes as “to watch
these are not enough to provide state security in
over the maintenance of good relations, to protect
an international system without supreme authority
the interests of his countrymen, and to report to
and for these reasons states should also count on
his government on all matters of real importance,
their own military power.
without being always charged with the conduct

10

Diplomacy
of a specific negotiation. At the more important
posts, the agent is assisted in furnishing reports of a
special character by military, naval and commercial
attache” (Satow, 1932, 109) He also admits that
secret agents would be used but underlines the
importance of honesty in relations. He was also
an opponent of open diplomacy and claimed that
for mutual understanding and trust, diplomatic
negotiations should be carried in secrecy.
Figure 1.7 Harold Nicolson
Another British diplomat who has contributed
to diplomatic theory is Harold Nicolson. Like
Satow he combined his experience with the history
of diplomacy. In his book titled Diplomacy, which
was published in 1939, a whole chapter is dedicated
to the development of diplomatic theory. According
to him principles that has evolved from the Greek,
Roman and Christian thought have laid the bases
that Western civilisation was built on and these
principles should not be abandoned. This also
applies to the interstate relations and the principles
that states should follow in their relations with the
others are formulated as international law. Therefore,
diplomacy is also shaped by these principles.
Still he accepts that in international relations it is
not only principles that are determinant but also
power plays an important role. In that sense he
was a supporter of the balance of power system
even though this system failed with World War I.
Having served and written in this critical time in
history when diplomacy was also transforming
Nicolson has also made a differentiation between
old and new diplomacy. Although he underlines
that there has not been a sharp change in terms of
diplomatic practice, the main reason underlying the
transformation of diplomacy was the change in state
1
systems. Following the War, many monarchies were
replaced by republics. In fact the process of transition
of authority from the monarch to the governments
was going on since the nineteenth century, but
early twentieth century witnessed the spread and
strengthening of this structure. As he defines it, “…
when during the course of the nineteenth century, the
old theories of diplomacy appeared to be adopting
new shapes, it was intact not the diplomatists who
were undergoing a change of heart but the political
systems which they represented.” (Nicolson, 1942,
70) According to Nicolson this led to many of the
disasters of diplomacy “due to the fact that this fully
representative quality has not been, on one side or
the other, full secured” since governments fall and
are succeeded by their opponents, who may or
may not follow the same line of policy. (Nicolson,
1942, 68) Nicolson’s theory draws attention the
difficult relation between diplomacy and domestic
policy. The change of policy with the change of
governments is closely related to the fact that these
new governments are elected and are accountable
to their voters and their concerns. At this point
there appears the question of being liable to the
public, which will be a more and more important
issue in diplomacy throughout the twentieth and
twenty-first century with the development of public
diplomacy. (See below.)
Another important writer who should be
mentioned is Hans Morgenthau, who is considered
the founder of international relations. Morgenthau’s
theory, which he portrayed in his 1948 book Politics
Among Nations, can also be read as a contribution
to the theory of diplomacy although not dedicated
to it. Morgenthau sees the quality of diplomacy as
the most important of all the factors which make
the power of a nation, since it is diplomacy that
brings the different elements of national power to
bear with maximum effect upon those points in the
international situation which concern the national
interest most directly. (Morgenthau, 1948, 105)
Morgenthau defines the aim of diplomacy as the
promotion of national interest by peace and has
four tasks in accordance with this aim: determining
its objectives in the light of the power actually
and potentially available for the pursuit of these
objectives; assessing the objectives of other nations
and the power actually and potentially available for
the pursuit of these objectives; determining to what
extent these different objectives are compatible with
11
1
Definition and Importance of Diplomacy

each other and employing the means suited to the

pursuit of these objectives. (Morgenthau, 1948,
419) The quality of diplomacy to achieve these
tasks is determined by tradition and institution.
He believes that it should not be individuals, may
it be diplomats, foreign ministers or heads of state,
who are the bearers of diplomacy. According to him
“the guidance of tradition would protect a poor
diplomacy from catastrophic blunders and make
a mediocre diplomacy look better than it actually
is.” (Morgenthau, 1948, 108) In connection with
defining the quality of diplomacy with tradition,
what Nicolson sees as transition from old diplomacy
to new diplomacy, Morgenthau sees as the decline
of diplomacy, starting at the end of the First
World War. This is also related to Morgenthau’s
approach that a diplomacy which ends in war
has failed its objective. Having witnessed two
world wars Morgenthau not surprisingly considers
diplomacy on decline. The reasons of this decline
according to Morgenthau are the development
of communications, depreciation of diplomacy
due to the public opinion that secret diplomatic
negotiations were responsible for the world war,
institutionalisation of diplomacy by parliamentary Figure 1.8 Cover of Politics Among Nations
procedures though international organisations like
League of Nations and United Nations, emergence The last diplomatist/writer to be discussed
of super powers as new actors of diplomacy, and in this chapter is Henry Kissinger. Kissinger’s
the nature of world politics with the emergence famous work titled Diplomacy can actually be read
of these superpowers and bipolar intonational as a history book and on many occasions he has
system. (Morgenthau, 1948, 425-430) Still this been described as a historian. He does believe that
decline of diplomacy is not inevitable and revival is international politics cannot be seized by only
possible. Morgenthau lists four fundamental rules, theoretical approach and for this reason the study
which can only be neglected at the risk of war, and of history is crucial. For Kissinger diplomacy had a
four prerequisites of compromise for this revival. secondary role and is dependent upon politics and
(Morgenthau, 1948, 439-443) The fundamental statesman. As a realist like Morgenthau, Kissinger
rules are; being divested of the crusading spirit, accepts the states are the main actors of international
defining the objectives of foreign policy in terms system, which is a scene of struggle for power and
of national interest and supporting them with national interest. Diplomacy is an instrument in
adequate power, looking at the political scene from conducting relations among these actors by peaceful
the point of view of other nations and being willing means. Indeed peace, stability and order were his
to compromise on all issues that are not vital. The main objectives about international politics but he
prerequisites of compromise on the other hand cannot help but say the will to establish this kind of
are, giving up the shadow of worthless rights of international order does not mean that it can ben
substance of read advantage, never putting yourself achieved, on the contrary he says “the active quest
in a position from which you cannot retreat without for peace … is not only unending but also least
losing face and from which you cannot advance likely to achieve its destination.” and warns that
without grave risks, never allowing a weak ally to “whenever peace...has been the primary objective
make decisions for you and seeing the armed forces of a power or group of powers, the international
as the instrument of foreign policy not as its master. system has been at the mercy of the most ruthless

12

Diplomacy
member of the international community.” (Otte,
2001b, 191) Although peace and stability cannot
be perfect, an efficient stability can be achieved
through balance of power system. Order on the
other hand, can only be secured though physical
precautions. Indeed, even though he describes
diplomacy in terms of peaceful means, he does not
exclude military means from diplomacy. According
to Kissinger states have influence as much as their
military power. He therefore claims that military
power and diplomacy should go hand ind hand
for a successful foreign policy. Still he considers the
main tool of diplomacy is negotiations.
Figure 1.9 Henry Kissinger
1
“According to an approach the recent
developments in technology and the
involvement of new issues and actors have
actually brought the end of diplomacy. Do
you agree?”
1
DIPLOMATIC RELATIONS
Diplomacy has a wide scope with many
different actors. Even when states are accepted
as the main actor of diplomacy, diplomacy takes
shapes depending on the characteristics of the
state. Besides the debate over whether the sovereign
states are less powerful and hence less important has
been on the agenda of international relations for a
long time and remains unconcluded. Nevertheless
it is a fact that states have given up their certain
powers in favour of other actors on several levels
and this also has led to the emergence of different
diplomatic engagements.
Diplomacy Between States
In very broad terms it is possible to separate
diplomatic relations between states into two,
depending on the number of actors, as bilateral
diplomacy and multilateral diplomacy. Whereas
bilateral diplomacy defines relations between
two states multilateral diplomacy defines the
relations between more than two such actors. As is
defined in the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic
Relations, the establishment of diplomatic relations
between States, and of permanent diplomatic
missions, takes place by mutual consent. (Article
2) Establishing diplomatic relations is only one of
the facets of recognition for states. Likewise being
accepted to an international organisation is a sign
of acceptance in a broader sense. Recognition
by itself does not require the establishment of
diplomatic relations but is a necessary prerequisite
for establishing diplomatic relations. Similarly
breaking of diplomatic relations does not mean
the withdrawal of recognition. Breaking up of
diplomatic relations is a unilateral act, realised
by an announcement of any of the states, on the
contrary to bilateral agreement of establishment.
States establish mutual relations usually with
an agreement that can be in the fashion of an
announcement, a joint decision, exchange of notes
or issuing of a communiqué and in some rare cases
states just encounter without any kind of agreement
but just the implication of having agreed to have
relations. The next step in interstate relations
after recognition and establishment of diplomatic
relations would be to send and receive diplomatic
representatives and establishing embassies.
13
1
Figure 1.10
Communiqué
An agreed statement issued at the end of a summit
meeting or other high- level visit or multilateral
conference. Occasionally described as declarations,
communiqués are designed to give the public some
sense of what has been discussed under each head on the
agenda and also suggest the substance of any consensus
achieved on future policy. (Berridge and James, 2003, 45) the United Nations (James, 2016, 265-266)
Figure 1.11
Congress of Westphalia (1644–48).
The congress at which an end to the Thirty Years’ War 1945. Multilateral diplomacy has both strengths and
was negotiated.The main fruits of the negotiations
were the two treaties of peace signed on 24 October
1648 known collectively as either the “Treaty”
or the “Peace” of Westphalia. They are generally
reckoned to have resolved the structure and codified
the constitutional rules of the European states-
system as it had emerged from the unity of medieval
Christendom. Thereafter, it has not been unusual to
see the term “Westphalian system” used to describe
the post-1648 system of international relations, i.e.
that in which states – secular, sovereign, independent,
and equal – are the members, and stability is
preserved by the balance of power, diplomacy and
international law. (Berridge and James, 2003, 276-7)
14
Definition and Importance of Diplomacy
Having diplomatic relations with a state does
not necessarily mean having good relations. States
may sometimes have very bad relations or have
periods of crises and even get involved in small scale
armed conflicts but still carry on their diplomatic
relations. When states go into conflict with each other
diplomacy gets involved in several ways. First of all as
it is the means of communication between states, they
declare their position through diplomacy. If ending
the relations is in question, diplomatic missions are
called back. But again this does not necessarily mean
that communication between states has to stop.
They can still communicate within the context of
diplomacy through intermediaries, meetings organised
at international organisations or use some non-
diplomatic methods like establishing non-diplomatic
offices, setting up non-diplomatic local arrangements
to deal with continuing bilateral issues and signalling
which may consist of subtle hints dropped in leaders’
speeches or a change in voting behaviour on a matter
which regularly comes before the General Assembly of
Multi-lateral diplomacy is an outcome of
modern diplomacy, which came to exist after the
Congress of Westphalia and usually functions
through conferences. (See below: Conference
Diplomacy) An important step towards multilateral
diplomacy was the establishment League of Nations
following the end of the First World War. What was
novel about the League of Nations, especially in
terms of diplomacy was that it served as permanent
base for multilateral diplomacy which used be carried
out through conferences that met for once and for
some days only. Another phenomena that pushed
the development of multilateral diplomacy was the
significant increase in the number of states since
weaknesses. On the weak side it may bring certain
issues to a gridlock by any of the parties if a desired
outcome is not reached. This may postpone or even
sweep away the possibility of any solution. On the
strong side it serves as a ground for cooperation. This
cooperation can be directed to problem-solving as
well as goal-setting in issues concerning the parties,
which at times may include all states as in the case of
League of Nations or United Nations. In such cases it
also serves as a platform of norm creation. In any case
multilateral diplomacy provides the opportunity for
all the involving parties to participate in resolutions
and higher their possibly of implementation.

Diplomacy
Great Power Diplomacy
A Great Power is generally described as a state
that has influence in international relations. This
influence mostly derives from state capabilities such
as territory, strategic position and geographical
extent, population, resources, military strength,
political stability and strong economy. To these
must also be added the elements of soft power,
which is described as “the ability to get what you
want through attraction rather than coercion or
payments.” There should also be a consensus about
which state is a great power. Congress of Vienna
and the Holy and Quadruple Aliences are the first
significant appearances of great power diplomacy.
Both the Congress and the series of congresses that
followed were dominated by the Great Powers.
They did not meet in a single assembly (plenary)
which would have allowed the smaller powers a
larger voice in proceedings. (Devetak et.al.,2012,
260) Although the congresses ended shortly after
the Congress of Vienna, the rest of the period till
the First World War was shaped by the domination
of Great Powers and the alliances, which brought
a relative period of peace known as the Concert
of Europe. Since then post-war settlements and
peace processes have been major objectives for
great power diplomacy. With the failure of these
attempts with the Second World War, great power
diplomacy was institutionalised with the permanent
members of the United Nations Security Council.
The main shape great power diplomacy took in
the Cold War Period was superpower diplomacy
in a bipolar international system. End of the Cold
War brought along a new type of great power
diplomacy, which can be described as hegemonic
diplomacy. Represented by USA in the post-Cold
War era, hegemonic diplomacy included not
only bilateral and multilateral diplomacy but also
unilateral diplomacy in inter-state relations. Still
major powers in the international system carry
out the old way of great power diplomacy through
summits that they are represented by the head of
states. (See below: Summit Diplomacy).
1
Congress of Vienna (1815)
The congress of the powers, which
restored the international order in Europe
following the protracted convulsions of
the Napoleonic Wars. For diplomacy, the
Regulation which it agreed solved at long
last the serious problem of precedence, while
the restoration of the Swiss Confederation
and the guarantee by the Congress of
Switzerland’s permanent neutrality fortified
a tradition which was subsequently to
prove of considerable value to the world
diplomatic system. (Berridge and Alan,
2003, 272)
Concert of Europe
The term used to describe the main
historical model of great power management
of a states-system, that of nineteenth
century Europe following the Congress of
Vienna. (Berridge and Alan, 2003, 47)
Middle Power Diplomacy
The term middle power refers to the states
which have neither the capacity nor the claim
to be great power but have more strength and
influence than the small states. These states are
usually accepted to be established democracies,
industrialised and affluent economies, managed by
efficient public bureaucracies with a low incidence
of corruption and adopt functional rather than
dominant behaviours towards their geographical
neighbourhoods. (Spies, 2016, 284) Middle power
diplomacy is usually a multilateral diplomacy. This
is because they lack the sources to be influential in
unilateral and bilateral actions. Thus they prefer to
establish alliances and coalitions with like-minded
states, which would provide them a chance of
leadership and influence. Middle powers perceive
international institutions as the ideal framework for
governing international affairs and strive to provide
multilateral solutions to global problems and they
also engage in multilateral activism to overcome
a lack of bargaining power at the unilateral and
bilateral level, and gain legality, legitimacy and
15
1
Definition and Importance of Diplomacy

moral authority for their assertive diplomatic initiatives. (Efstathopoulos,2018, 55) Because they lack the
sources hard power they focus on developing their soft power. The common national attributes of middle
powers – domestic orderliness and adherence to human rights, democracy and good governance – also
make them international role models for many other states in the diplomatic arena. (Spies, 2016, 285)
Their approach to the international system is also in terms of peace, order and the rule of law. They make
useful intermediaries during international crises and conflicts. Their foreign policy goals are formulated
in the same respect. They aim to reduce conflicts in the international system thorough multilateralism,
negotiation and compromise and are willing to take the lead in such attempts.In order to reach this, they
also give financial support or official development assistance to countries that are struggling economically.

Small State Diplomacy

Being a small state means to have relatively less power in the international system. They usually have
small territory and population, low sources and income, weak economy and military, and high vulnerability.
As a consensus is deemed necessary for a state to be considered a great power, considering itself a small
state is criteria for describing small states, as this a factor that shapes their behaviours. For this reason,
diplomacy becomes more important for these states than is for any other state as a tool of overcoming
their vulnerability and weakness. Small power diplomacy became a part of modern diplomacy early in the
twentieth century following the end of the First World War, when a number of new independent states
appeared with the collapse of empires. Another important development in this sense was decolonisation
and the emergence of new independent states in the international system. A common feature of the
diplomacy of small states as new states, is the importance that they attach to diplomatic representation.
As it is a sign of recognition and sovereignty, having representatives in other states and international
organisations has been and is still an important part of diplomatic relations for the newly independent and
small states. This is especially true for establishing embassies in the capitals of major powers even though
they do not always respond by establishing one in the small state. Therefore, diplomatic representatives are
still important actors for these states in terms of their diplomacies. Still due to insufficiency in economic
resources, some of them cannot afford to establish embassies in many countries and have to keep this
attempt limited. The same applies to improvement of their soft power and means of public diplomacy. (See
below: Public diplomacy) Only a minority of the small states have the resources to invest in the elements
of soft power in order to become a more influential international actor.
The only way that these states gain influence is to act together. While some of the new states of the post
Second World War era sided with one of the superpowers of the Cold War, others chose not to be a part
of it and started the Non-Aligned Movement, bringing a
new dynamic to the international system. Forming a block
Non-Aligned Movement that brings them together and acting under the roof of this
The movement consisting for the most block provided states a cumulative power that each single
part of Third World states which had as its of them lack. In the same sense they also prefer multilateral
rationale a determination to resist pressure diplomacy to bilateral one. Therefore, United Nations
to abandon their non-aligned stance of presents them an important opportunity where they can
refusing to join either of the military both act as a group that holds a significant number of votes,
alliance systems. Its origins are to be found and carry out bilateral relations by coming together with
in a summit meeting held in Bandung in the representatives of other countries. This is especially
Indonesia in April 1955, though it was not important for those countries that do not have wide
formally launched (in Belgrade, Yugoslavia) network of embassies. The collective power of the small
until 1961. Since the Lusaka summit in state diplomacy has also contributed the development of
1970, summit meetings of members have international law. They have for instance enabled the entry
been held triennially. (Berridge and Alan, into force conventions, as was the case with the 1982
2003, 186) Convention on the Law of the Sea, which has entered into
force with the ratification of states such as Malta, Honduras,

16

Diplomacy
St Vincent and the Grenadines, Barbados and
Guyana in November 1994 – without ratification
or accession at that time by major powers. (Barston,
2013, 8) Another example is the establishment
of International Criminal Court after United
Nations General Assembly asked the International
Law Commission to resume the work on an
international criminal court in 1989 upon the
request of Trinidad and Tobago.
Diplomacy of Non-State Actors
The proliferation of non-state actors in
diplomacy has become necessary due the fact that
states are no longer capable of responding to all the
issues that has entered the agenda of international
diplomacy, as mentioned before. Non-state
actors of diplomacy include non-governmental
organisations, corporations, as well as the
intergovernmental organisations. The oldest group
of actors in this category are the intergovernmental
organisations, which still is a form of state
representation. International organisations usually
come in the form of regional organisations or
regardless of region maybe established on other
grounds such as common resources, the level
of the economy, proximity on important issues
or historical legacy (Rana, 2011, 51) Regional
organisations serve as a tool that states of a region
my act as a block that could make them more
powerful and influential. It is also an instrument
in establishing regional peace and stability, which
would again contribute to the power components
of the states. In the same context, states also can
form regional organisations that are based on
economic cooperation that would provide them
certain advantages over the non-member states. Free
trade is the most prominent of these advantages.
Economic cooperation also serves as a platform
for deeper political, security collaboration. The
same factors apply to non-regional organisations
as well. Having established a cooperation based
on commonalities gives states an opportunity to
enhance their power in international relations.
In the face of global economic, social,
humanitarian and environmental crises as
states proved to be insufficient of answering
all these problems and non-state actors such as
nongovernmental organisations, social movements,
businesses, and corporations offered more efficient
1
solutions to these problems, either by themselves
or in cooperation with state actors. This has made
them indispensable actors for diplomacy. The
diplomatic relations of these actors with state
actors is defined by the term polylateralism, which
brings a third dimension in diplomacy, in addition
to bilateralism and multilateralism. Polylateralism
is the conduct of relations between official entities
(such as a state, several states acting together, or a
state-based international organisation) and at least
one unofficial, non-state entity in which there is a
reasonable expectation of systematic relationships,
involving some form of reporting, communication,
negotiation, and representation, but not involving
mutual recognition as sovereign, equivalent
entities. (Wiseman, 2010: 27).
2
“Do you agree that multilateral
diplomacy is a useful ground
for small state diplomacy?”
TYPES OF DIPLOMACY
The constantly widening world of diplomacy
requires different methods applied to different
cases. This has led to the formulation of different
types of diplomacy. Some of them are those that
have been used by states for a very long time. But
some are relative new and probably would not be
considered as diplomacy in the nineteenth or even
the significant part of the twentieth century. There
is a big variety of diplomacies in this sense. It is not
in the capacity of this chapter to dwell upon them
all but the most important will be examined.
Secret Diplomacy
It is to everyone’s knowledge that a major
part of diplomacy is carried out in secrecy. Secret
diplomacy refers to diplomatic engagements that
take place without the knowledge of the public.
However it does not mean that the diplomatic
meetings that occur behind closed doors are secret
diplomacy. If the term was defined in this way,
almost all diplomatic intercourse would have to be
defined as secret diplomacy. Neither does it mean
confidentiality. What is meant by secret diplomacy
17
1
is that the very existence of certain diplomatic
meetings are kept secret from domestic and foreign
publics. In some cases although the existence of
the diplomatic engagement is not denied, it is
intentionally kept away from the attention of the
public. This would be another type of diplomacy
called quiet diplomacy.
The question of whether diplomacy should be
open or secret is being discussed since the First
World War by the theoreticians and practitioners
of diplomacy. According to the advocates of secret
diplomacy, if it would be for the general good it is
better to keep diplomatic engagements in secret.
This approach claims that open negotiations put
pressure on the diplomatic actors and affect the
success of the negotiations. Especially if it is a
peace negotiation in question, for the sake of it,
the process which may include bargaining and
concessions should not be shared with the public
in order to avoid reaction that can hamper the
peace process. Opponents of secret diplomacy on
the other hand, base their arguments mainly on the
fact that secrecy, especially in contemporary world,
is very difficult to maintain and when eventually the
truth is revealed it could raise questions, suspicions
and probably misperceptions and reaction of all
kinds both in the other members of international
community and domestic public and politics.
Conference and Summit
Diplomacies
Conference diplomacy refers to the multilateral
diplomatic negotiations that take place in
international conferences. But this does necessarily
mean that all negotiations also occur with the
participation of all actors. Bilateral or limited
multilateral negotiations also take place among the
participants of conference diplomacy. Conference
diplomacy can be divided into two according to
the way they take place; through international
organisations or ad hoc. International organisations
provide a permanent and stable base, with
wide participation, defined context, established
structure, experienced and specialised assistance.
Accordingly it is more likely to expect agreed
and implemented outcomes. Ad hoc conferences
on the other hand are one-time events that are
organised for the negotiation of a given conflict.
In terms of their objectives on the other hand it
18
Definition and Importance of Diplomacy
is possible to make a more detailed classification
following Kaufmann who offers two different types
of classifications. (Kaufmann, 1996,11-16) The
broad one differs between a deliberative conference,
which concentrates on general discussions and
exchanges of points of view on certain topics; a
legislative conference which endeavours to make
recommendations to governments or makes
decisions which are binding upon governments;
and an informal conference, which has as its main
purpose the international exchange of information
on specific questions. A more detailed classification
on the other hand identifies eight objectives for
diplomatic conferences; to serve as a forum for
general discussion of broad or specific issues; to
make decisions binding upon governments; to
make decisions giving guidance or instructions
to the secretariat of an intergovernmental
organisation, or on the way in which a programme
financed by governments should be administered;
to negotiate and draft a treaty or other formal
international instrument; to provide for the
international exchange of information; to provide
for the pledging of voluntary contributions to
international programmes; to review progress
under an agreement or a treaty concluded earlier.
Figure 1.12 Congress of Vienna
Another critical aspect of conference diplomacy
is about how the decisions are taken, since this also
has an important impact on their implementation
afterwards, especially for those conferences with
big participation. The wide participation in the
conference and its resolutions is an important
source of legitimacy for diplomatic negotiations
and their resolutions. But on the other hand, it
is a factor that complicates the decision making.
Decisions can be taken with unanimity, consensus,

Diplomacy
and simple or qualified majority voting. Unanimity
means that all parties have to agree on the final
decision. Consensus means that all votes are in
favour of the decision and there are no votes
against, although there may be some abstentions.
Simple majority refers the more than half of the
votes whereas qualified majority refers to certain
number votes that is required to finalise a decision.
There may also be a mixture of different voting
systems in certain cases.
Another determinant in conference diplomacy
is the power of the states. Although each state is
equally represented in conference and therefore
it would expected that they would diminish the
power gaps, great powers usually tend to dominated
the conferences. In many cases this helps the
conference to reach a conclusion but it disturbs
other states and hampers the implementation
of the resolutions. There are also the cases that
great powers themselves do not comply with the
decisions of the conference. Small states states,
on the other hand, can create a source of power
for themselves though alliances. For this reason,
conference diplomacy is a platform they apply
more frequently.
Political leaders have always been determinant
agents of diplomatic conferences since the
Congress of Vienna, when tsar Alexander of Russia
decided to represent his country himself, but
their roles have also increased in the meantime,
replacing the diplomats in many cases. This had
led to the development of a branch of diplomacy
called summit diplomacy. Summit diplomacy
refers to the meetings of heads of states or
governments. It can be bilateral, brining the
leaders of two states together or multilateral with
the participation of several leaders. It also can be
ad-hoc or institutionalised and regularly take place.
Developments in communications and transport
technologies has made it easier for leaders to come
together and presented a ground for the spread of
summit diplomacy.
Coercive Diplomacy
Coercive diplomacy defines the use of limited
force or the threat of using force in diplomatic
relations, with the aim of achieving desired
ends. This makes coercive diplomacy a type
of engagement that differs from the generally
1
accepted conceptualisation that diplomacy
involves peaceful means in interstate relations.
For those who define diplomatic methods only
in peaceful terms, coercion would only mean that
diplomacy has failed. But on the other hand, it is
fact that coercion is one of the oldest methods used
in diplomacy. The success of coercive diplomacy
depends on the outcomes that are aimed and the
way that it is used. Coercion “should only be
employed reactively to stop or undo undesirable
actions already undertaken by an opponent” and
should be about influencing or avoiding rather
than defeating or winning. (Jakobsen,2016, 478)
Likewise if force or the threat of it, are the only
means, the chances of success would not be high.
Instead it should be supported by positive influence
and encouragements and provide some guarantees
and assurances. Therefore, coercion should not aim
a long term solution but an instrument that brings
the parties to discuss and find a solution. This way
the use of coercive means would also be considered
legitimate. The most legitimate use of coercive
diplomacy is to avoid or to stop armed conflicts
and wars.
A version of coercive diplomacy is military
diplomacy which can be described as the use of force
of threat of it to achieve military goals. The use of
naval force for the same ends is referred as gunboat
diplomacy. For some definitions and theories of
diplomacy, which takes the terms only within the
context as peace, military and diplomacy cannot
exist together and hence there cannot be a military
diplomacy. But military means have almost always
been on the diplomacy table. What has changed
about military diplomacy is that whereas it had
traditionally been used or claimed to be used for
national security reasons, it transformed to include
stopping armed conflict between third parties or
preventing them form happening and assisting a
third country develop its military forces. A term
often confused with military diplomacy is defence
diplomacy, which actually is carried out by civil
politicians of the ministry. But as the two groups
of actors usually act together the line between two
types of diplomacy also gets blurred.
19
1
Crisis Diplomacy
Crisis diplomacy defines the international
efforts to manage and solve a crises. The need
for crisis diplomacy has increased significantly
since the world has become more interconnected
and a crisis occurring in one region of the world
becomes the concern of other states, on both
regional and international level. New types of
global crises, such as humanitarian, economic,
environmental or health crises necessitate the
involvement of many state and non-state actors
in order to reach a solution. Armed conflicts or
those that carry a risk of turning into an armed
conflict is the priority of crisis diplomacy. In such
cases the aim is to prevent the conflict or stop it
and start a peace process, by finding a solution that
would be accepted by all parties of the conflict.
But most of the time there is an intervention of
the outside forces. Such interventions are usually
based on humanitarian concerns that aim to
protect the civilians harmed by the conflict. But
this sort of interventions raise questions about state
sovereignty, as it is considered intervening in the
internal affairs of a state. Although by definition
crisis diplomacy aims resolving certain crises, for
some actors it is a matter of getting the most out
of a crises by managing it in favour of their own
interests. But the opposite also applies and some
conflicts are deemed out of interest zone and does
not become the subject of international crisis
diplomacy, or at least until it is too late. For this
reason new efforts of conflict resolution have been
developed, sometimes supporting and the other
times replacing crisis diplomacy, such as track-two
and multitrack diplomacies.
Track Two Diplomacy and Multi-
track Diplomacy
Track two diplomacy refers to the unofficial
diplomatic activity, presupposing that official
diplomacy is the Track I. Since it differs from
official diplomacy its actors are also not state
officials. NGOs, local leaders, conflict resolution
practitioners, universities, academics, students
can all be actors of track two diplomacy. These
groups or people could establish networks that
can influence the views in their countries. Track
two diplomacy came to be discussed and defined
in 1980s. The first use of it came from Joseph
20
Definition and Importance of Diplomacy
Montville, who defined track two diplomacy as the
unofficial, informal interaction between members
of adversarial groups or nations with the goals of
developing strategies, influencing public opinion,
and organising human and material resources in
ways that might help resolve the conflict.
Montville’s definition points to the conflict
resolution aspect of track-two diplomacy which
is the most common way of its practice. It stems
from the understanding that there are issues that
cannot be solved with traditional diplomacy. As
a matter of fact this is how track two diplomacy
appeared even before it was called by this name,
when a former Australian diplomat John Burton
decided to apply his theory about the role of
communication and dialog in conflict resolution,
to the boundary dispute between Malaysia,
Singapore and Indonesia. He brought together
influential people from these countries, who had
close ties with their governments but were not
official government representatives to discuss
the causes of the conflict and suggest potential
solutions and share those with their governments,
who incorporated those into the agreements they
signed to end the conflict. (Jones, 2015, 14)
Although Burton called his method “controlled
communication” and not track two diplomacy, this
process was exactly what it would be called in the
coming years. The aim of track two negotiations
is to bring together people from different sides of
a conflict in an attempt to bridge their difference.
Brining people from different countries together is
not only a conflict resolution activity but also may
aim building bonds among countries. Track two
diplomacy is used also to improve regional security
in general without addressing a specific conflict. In
any case the people who are involved in the track
two diplomacy are expected to be able to reach state
official and acknowledge them about the outcome
of their activity and influence the state’s stance on
certain issues.
As positive outcomes have been reached,
it became a method that is widely applied.
Especially new technological developments in
communications and transport played a positive
role in track two diplomacy since it provided new
and easy ways to bring people together. People
not only come together in a number of track
two activities but also have the opportunity to
communicate and be familiar with other people.
 1
Diplomacy

This portrays how a country is viewed by the citizens of another country as well as showing them the
misunderstandings, prejudices, misleading and misinformations they may have. Overcoming all this
negative dynamics is an important step in solving conflicts. Therefore an important function of track two
diplomacy is to change the perceptions of, and about the other. Along with the opportunities it offers
track two diplomacy has also some advantages over official track one diplomacy. First of all since the
participants of track two diplomacy are not government officials they are not limited with state policies.
Neither are they manipulated by them. This provides more room for discussions and negotiation and
eventually mutual understanding. Since these meetings are not public most of the time, they are also free
of the pressures, criticism and oppositions. Their resolutions - if they reach any-are not binding. This also
is a freedom area for track two, but in applicable terms if any influence on the governments is intended.
Despite all the efforts to develop it and its advantages people-to-people initiatives fail in many cases and
political or even military conflict override. The main reason for the failure is that the final words are said
by the governments. No matter how much people’s influence increase, states still may choose to ignore it
and have the power to do so. The failure of track two may also be due to the incompatibility of the people
that carry out the process. They may not be well equipped or well intended, may have not understood
the essence and significance of the issue, or may not communicate with the other parties in the way that
nature of track two requires. The legitimacy of these people is also brought into question by those who
do not believe in the efficiency of track two diplomacy or are against the resolution of the conflict at all.
To overcome this shortcomings another type of classification is suggested under the name of multi-track
diplomacy.

Track Nine (inner circle):

Public Opinion/Communication Track One: Government

Track Eight: Funding Track Two: Professional

Conflict Resolution

Track Seven: Religious Track Three: Business

Track Six: Activism Track Four: Private Citizen

Track Five: Research,

Training and Education
Figure 1.13 Nine Tracks of Multi-Track Diplomacy

Multi-track diplomacy claims that placing all aspects of unofficial diplomacy under track-two makes
it difficult to seize whole scope and context of the field. For this reason, multi-track diplomacy offers a
multilayer differentiation with nine tracks instead of two. It also foresees a cooperation with official diplomacy.
Therefore, the first track in multitrack diplomacy is the government and its official representatives as the
actors of traditional diplomacy. Track two would be the professional, experienced nonofficial attempts of
conflict resolution through nongovernmental actors. Track three is defined as business and consequently is
carried out by businessmen. This track is based on the assumptions that besides providing financial sources
for conflict resolution and peace making efforts, these actors can also build mutual trust and friendship
through economic and commercial channels. It is expected that economic ties and interests would forge
the parties solve conflicts that could harm these ties and interests. Track four of multi-track diplomacy
is carried out by private citizens. Often referred as citizen diplomacy, this track resembles the track-two

21
1
Definition and Importance of Diplomacy

diplomacy and makes it a sub-field of multi-track diplomacy. It brings together people from different sects
of society, in workshops, exchange programs and joint projects in order to break prejudices and develop
mutual understanding. Track five includes research, training, and education. Educational institutions from
kindergarten to universities, research centres, tanks tanks can be actors of this diplomatic engagement.
What is aimed with the mentioned activities is to get to the bottom of the conflict and formulate solutions
through researches and study programs, train people who could carry out negotiation and mediation in
resolving the conflict and raise awareness through educational institutions for a sustainable peace. Track
six of multi-track diplomacy is activism and aims to raise awareness among the public and influence them
though protests and gatherings about issues like peace, human rights, environment, social and economic
justice. Track seven is religion and is based on directing the influence of religious beliefs, communities and
institutions to conflict resolution by highlighting themes like shared values. Track eight is about the funding
of all these multitrack diplomacy activities. The actors of this track, or the funders can be individuals, like
philanthropists, or groups like communities, foundations and corporations. The last track, track nine is the
communication and media. What is aimed with this track is to provide information that would influence
the public opinion and bring people together despite the distances.

Economic Diplomacy
Economy has always been a major component of international relations and thus has influenced
diplomacy. But since the last decades of the twentieth century, along with the appearance of global
economy it has become a major activity of the diplomatic system, shadowing even politics in some cases.
This has led to the emergence of economic diplomacy. An initial definition of economic diplomacy is the
implementation of foreign policy by using economic means to achieve political goals or that it is a strategy
to promote foreign policy objectives. More specifically, it can be the use of diplomatic means to promote
and achieve economic objectives, which may even be implicit in the overall planning of the foreign policy
of a state. It increases the negotiating power of a country, with its tool of economic power, which is one
of the most important grounds on which an
effective foreign policy is now based. The
The Group of Seven (G7) and The Group of Twenty (G20) term also includes negotiations and decision-
The Group of Seven (G7), formerly G8 is a club of making in international economic relations.
industrialised democratic states (France, Germany, Japan, Globalisation has increased the importance
the USA, the UK, Italy and Canada) that meets annually to of these relations as it is no longer possible
discuss important economic, financial, and political issues. It for states to isolate or protect themselves
provides a forum for world leaders to collaborate on collective from the impact of international economic
problems, to manage the world economy, and to address issues activities. The stability of the global
arising from interdependence and globalisation. The G7 works economy has become a concern of domestic
closely with other organisations, in particular the IMF and the politics and even national security.
OECD. Economic diplomacy takes various
The Group of 20 (G20) is made up of the G7 industrialised forms, such as the formation of an
democratic countries, the five emerging BRICS countries, export policy, the attraction of foreign
(Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa) seven other investment, multilateral or bilateral level
economically emerging countries (Argentina, Australia, of internal market protection measures
Indonesia, Mexico, Saudi Arabia, South Korea, Turkey,) and and the development of aid programs. It
the European Union, which together as the G20 represent the negotiates a broad area of fields such as
twenty largest global economies, generating approximately production, trade in goods and services,
85 per cent of global GDP. Although G20 began as a forum financing, global natural environment,
to discuss global economic stability, its agenda expanded to information, data, regulatory frameworks.
include the discussion of other topics, such as global security, This multidimensional content reflects the
global health, development, gender, climate change, migration, important role that economic diplomacy
and the refugee crises. (Brown et.al.,2018, can play in the international scene between

22

Diplomacy
states and international actors. State institutions,
international economic organisations like IMF,
World Bank and World Trade Organisation are still
the major actors of economic diplomacy but private
companies, especially multinational ones, and
individuals are also powerful actors, influencing
state behaviour. In most cases these actors are
also the direct beneficiaries of the international
economic diplomacy negotiations. The influence
of these actors in both domestic and international
economics have increased considerably. This has led
to definition of another type of diplomacy called
business diplomacy as part of the domination of
markets and international firms. Also within the
state institutions it is not the ministry of foreign
affairs that drive economic diplomacy, but ministry
of economics or finance or other related institutions
take the lead. Head of states and governments are
also determinant in economic diplomacy. On many
occasions state and non-state economic actors
accompany the state leaders in the bilateral or
multilateral summits that they are participating, in
order to make economic cooperation agreements.
Public Diplomacy
Public diplomacy defines the diplomatic
communication between traditional actors of
diplomacy and the public. By public it is meant
foreign publics and the international community
as a whole but in certain cases domestic public
also becomes the audience of public diplomacy.
Some writers do not agree that public diplomacy
is also directed to domestic public since diplomacy
is not practiced domestically. But it eventually
turns into a process that domestic public is
involved. Public diplomacy is basically about the
image of a state. States care about their images
in order to improve their political, economical,
strategic positions and relations. For this reason
the main aim of public diplomacy is creating a
positive image for influencing the public and
winning its support. But in time it has also
become a tool that the public can also influence
states in terms of agenda setting and even decision
making. Therefore, it is possible to say that public
diplomacy is an importance mean of involving
the public in foreign diplomatic relations.
Informing and influencing the public has always
been on the agenda of the states. But it took the
1
shape of public diplomacy in the first half of the
twentieth century. It was the World Wars that paved
the way for the development of public diplomacy.
While states kept their populations informed about
the war, they also wanted to prove their rightfulness
and mobilise the public. The interwar period was
the peak of such activities. States such as Germany
and the Soviet Union used propaganda activities for
the same ends. United States and United Kingdom
answered by institutionalising public diplomacy
efforts respectively through Committee on Public
Information and British Propaganda Office.
Second half of the century witnessed acceleration
of public diplomacy efforts. During the bipolar
international system of the Cold War public
diplomacy was frequently applied by both blocks,
especially by the bloc leader super powers. Now
more than ever public diplomacy was targeting
the populations of foreign countries, especially
those living in the opposite block. The aim was
to influence foreign publics, convince them about
their political, social and economic superiority
and cut their support for their own states. In 1965
Edmund A. Gullion gave a definition of public
diplomacy, which led to the association of the
term with his name. According to his definition
“public diplomacy deals with the influence of
public attitudes on the formation and execution
of foreign policies. It encompasses dimensions
of international relations beyond traditional
diplomacy; the cultivation by governments of
public opinion in other countries; the interaction
of private groups and interests in one country with
those of another; the reporting of foreign affairs
and its impact on policy; communication between
those whose job is communication, as between
diplomats and foreign correspondents; and the
processes of inter-cultural communications.”
Another conceptual contribution to public
diplomacy was made by Joseph Nye, who
brought the term soft power into international
relations literature as “the ability to get what you
want through attraction rather than coercion or
payments” and mentioned that “it arises from
the attractiveness of a country’s culture, political
ideals, and policies. When our policies are seen as
legitimate in the eyes of others, our soft power is
enhanced.” (Nye, 2004, x) For what Nye described
as soft power, public diplomacy seemed to be the
essential tool. The emphasis on cultural aspect has
23
1
also led to the emergence of cultural diplomacy in
relation with public diplomacy. Cultural diplomacy
can be defined in two ways. The first definition is
refers to the cultural activities of states in other
countries as means of promoting its culture and
gaining influence. Cultural attaches as part of the
embassies are the state instruments of promoting
cultural diplomacy. But nonofficial institutions
like cultural centres and language schools are also
used in these terms. The other aspect of cultural
diplomacy sees culture as the essence of a people
and therefore as a key element for building mutual
understanding between different publics. This kind
of understanding would especially be crucial in
case conflicts.
Figure 1.14 Cover of Soft Powe
Since Nye came up with the term in 1980s
soft power came to be considered as important
or even more important than hard power. This
period was also the time of globalisation, which
enriched public diplomacy with new methods
and actors as it was also gaining importance. The
technological base of globalisation, especially in
terms of communication, played the major role in
this process. Along with media which has been a
traditional instrument of public diplomacy cultural
24
Definition and Importance of Diplomacy
and linguistic centres, higher education institutes,
sports events, tourism, movies, tv series have all
been instrumental in public diplomacy. One of the
most significant change in the practice of public
diplomacy was the variation of actors. Participation
of these actors have lead tot the emergence of new
types of diplomacy such as celebrity diplomacy
and sports diplomacy. Celebrity diplomacy
is the inclusion of celebrities as advocates to
publicise certain causes like peace, human rights,
environment and raise awareness about these issues.
Sports diplomacy on the other hand, is about
using major sports events, institutions or individual
sportsman to support country image, as well as a
means of drawing attention to local or global issues.
Even ordinary individuals can play significant
roles by using communication technologies in
informing both the domestic and international
public. Another important development in
connection with this was the democratisation of
diplomacy. As soft power becomes crucial and
people become not only the subject but also the
object of public diplomacy they began to have
more influence. Public capacity to influence the
state changes from country to country. But there is
also the opportunity to influence the international
community through international networks and
cooperation of public opinions. This also brings
a more holistic/integrative approach to domestic
and foreign public involvement, in which public
diplomacy’s international and domestic dimensions
can be seen as “stepping stones on a continuum of
public participation that is central to international
policymaking and conduct.” (Huijgh, 2016,
443) All these developments have extended the
content the of public diplomacy so much that it
may sometimes be confused with diplomacy itself.
Indeed some writers believe that all diplomacy
is actually public diplomacy. Although there is a
righteous point in this claim as states care more
and more about their soft power, it has not become
the sole source of their power. Especially for those
who have a considerable hard power.
Digital Diplomacy
Digital diplomacy is one of the newest modes
of diplomacy. It is about the technological
developments that have transforming effects
on diplomacy. It has been challenging for
 1
Diplomacy

traditional diplomacy in terms of its instruments as well as other states and even the international
and institutions but it also has provided new politics. In this sense digital diplomacy is closely
ones. Information and communication are not related to public diplomacy. Policy- makers employ
a monopoly of states anymore, they are not digital diplomacy, especially social media, for
even controllable by them. Therefore, states several functions: to investigate what the public
responded by obtaining the same instruments in thinks about foreign policy choices; to educate
their international relations and this led to the the public about foreign policy and international
emergence of digital diplomacy as a new field. relations; to explain challenges and alternative
Digital diplomacy has developed in several stages means to address them; and to cultivate public
defined by vision, rapid technological innovations support for policies they have selected. (Gilboa,
and organisational adoptions by foreign ministries. 2016, 546) This way while citizens become actors
(Gilboa, 2016, 541) The extent to which this in diplomacy they also become the audience of it
has affected diplomacy is a discussion point. For through digital diplomacy.
some it is just a new instrument for the conduct
of foreign policy while others believe that it has
become the diplomacy itself. In any case it cannot
be denied that diplomacy uses the digital means
by integrating them to its methods. It provides
diplomatic agents new tools to obtain information
as well as serving as a tool that they can disseminate
this information. It provides new tools for diplomats
to make foreign policy and diplomacy more
comprehensive, coherent and appealing. Foreign
ministries, ambassadors and other diplomats now
all have social media accounts through which they
not only inform but also receive comments from
the public. This accounts are usually bilingual -
English being the second language - which shows
Figure 1.15
that the target group is not only their citizens but
the international community.

Twiplomacy 3
the use of Twitter and other social media
sites by government agencies and officials to “What would be the historical
engage with the public, disperse information events that contribute to the
and even leverage global influence. development of conference
diplomacy in your opinion?”

With the technological revolution informal

channels have also appeared for people to
communicate and inform each other and come
together on the international level. The widespread
usage of smartphones has furthered the impact of
these new technologies, making everything instant.
This has changed the nature of relations between the
state and the citizen. With the more information
they access and the opportunity to share it and
come together the citizens have become more
powerful. This helps them influence their states

25
1
Definition and Importance of Diplomacy

LO 1 “Define diplomacy and recognise its scope, actors

and functions”

Diplomacy does not have an agreed definition since it is not an easy

term to define. This is due to the changing nature of diplomacy.
That is why defining diplomacy is actually about recognising
its actors, scope and functions. It is initially defined in terms
of relations among sovereign states, covering basically political
relations, along with economic and cultural relations to a certain
degree. Within this context the traditional actors of diplomacy are
Summary

the agents of ministries of foreign policy and diplomatic missions

in foreign countries. Its functions consequently were defined as
representation, protection of the interests and citizens of its state,
negotiation, monitoring and reporting and development of
economic, cultural and scientific relations. That is why diplomacy
has been used interchangeably with foreign policy in many
occasions. Although it is true that the two are closely related they
are not the same thing. Diplomacy is an instrument of foreign
policy but on the other hand has a wider scope than foreign policy.
In a globalised world, many issues are no longer in the capacity of
single states to solve, in some cases not even the domestic ones.
Therefore communication, negotiation, cooperation and even
intervention of certain states, groups, organisations or individuals
have become essential in the handling of these issues, including
them in the scope of diplomacy. With a rapidly expanding scope it
came to include all sorts of international relations between different
kind of international actors.For this reason while earlier definitions
usually focus on political relations, later definitions mention about
other actors and management of international relations. Therefore,
finally it is possible to define diplomacy as the instrument that
makes the conduct of international relations possible.

26
 1
Diplomacy

LO 2 “Review the theoretical framework of international

diplomacy”

The theoretical framework of diplomacy is drawn by the theories of diplomacy. Following the emergence
of permanent diplomacy theories about this field was also formulated, mostly by those who were also
involved in the practice of diplomacy. Therefore these theories are mainly based on the practice of
diplomacy, derived from experience and put together in a way to give advices. Study of these theories
help to see the continuations, changes and transformations in diplomacy. Many them being written
during historical breaking points, reveal the context to link the evolution of diplomacy to the historical
events, where theory and practice come together.

Summary
The first of these theories can be derived from the works of Machiavelli. Although he attributes
significance to diplomatic representation, for him diplomacy is secondary compared to military power.
Thus diplomacy is actually a tool that meets the deficit of military power and can use every means,
including deception, for this end. In his diplomatic theory Machiavelli defines the duties of diplomats,
which have stayed almost the same in the centuries that past. He also makes a connection between state
systems and diplomacy, which will again be discussion on the twentieth century.
Another Italian diplomat who can be studied in the context of diplomatic theories is Francesco
Guicciardini, who puts the duties and qualifications if the ambassador in the centre. According to
Guicciardini, not only represents his state but also the prestige of his prince. He also gives advises about
the way that negotiations shout be carried.
The main concern of Hugo Grotius in his theory of diplomacy is to avoid war, by using diplomatic
methods, such as conference, negotiations, arbitration and compromise. A second issue he puts emphasis
on is diplomatic representation and the immunities and privileges of diplomats must have in order to
carry out their duties. Diplomatic immunities have become the essentials of modern diplomacy, without
which diplomacy cannot function.
Cardinal Richelieu’s advices to the French king Loius XIII, can be read as another source of diplomatic
theory. Like Grotius, Richelieu’s concern was also to establish peace and he saw diplomacy as the means
to achieve that. For him diplomacy had to be permanent, in order to be effective and efficient, as it is in
modern diplomacy today.
When we come to the twentieth century, theories of diplomacy can also be appraised within the context
international relations theory. The first name to be mentioned in this sense would be Ernest Satow, who
give a detailed account of diplomacy in his guiding book. His book covers the history of diplomacy,
functions of diplomatic institutions and the roles of diplomatic actors.
Another diplomat/writer following the tradition of Satow is Harold Nicolson. Nicolson as well has
a historical approach to diplomacy. He first of all studies the development of diplomatic theory in
order to put forward the principles that shapes diplomacy. He makes a differentiation between old and
diplomacy based on the change in the political systems of states following the First World War. This way
he underlines the relation between domestic politics and diplomacy, which were to be more intertwined
as the century proceed.
Morgenthau, who is accepted as the founder of international relations discipline, defines diplomacy
as the most important factor which makes the power of a nation as it brings the different elements of
national power together. Describing the aim of diplomacy as he promotion of national interest by peace,
he believes that diplomacy has been on the decline since the First World War. He therefore, along with
offering remedies to stop stop this decline and revive diplomacy, he also defines the tasks of diplomacy
and what makes a qualified diplomacy.
The last diplomatic theory belongs to Henry Kissinger, who also has a historical approach to diplomacy,
framed with theory. He also describes diplomacy in terms of peaceful relations between states. What he
expects from a successful diplomacy is peace, order and stability. But like other realist writers he does not
exclude military power from international relations.

27
1
Definition and Importance of Diplomacy

LO 3 “Analyse and compare the diplomatic relations of

different actors”

Even if approached from the narrow definition of diplomacy which relates it to the states and their
foreign policies, there would still be different kinds of actors in question. Since not all the states have the
same qualifications, it is possible to make categorisation among states, which consequently necessitates a
categorisation about their diplomacies. The broadest categorisation would be to divide states into three
groups according the elements of power they hold; great powers, middle powers and small powers. Great
powers are the states who can influence the international system due to the sources of power they have
such as territory, strategic position and geographical extent, population, resources, military strength,
Summary

political stability and strong economy. Since the Congress of Vienna Great Powers are considered to
be dominating the international system, sometimes through alliances and sometimes through rivalry.
They are also considered as the protectors of peace and stability in international relations. Using their
influence and sources through economic sanctions or military intervention they are expected to stop or
avoid conflicts around the world.
Middle powers are those that do not have the influence or the sources that great powers have but are more
influential and powerful than the small states. The power components of middle powers are usually soft
power elements, such as political stability, functioning bureaucracy, wealthy economy. Their diplomatic
initiatives are also shaped by these elements and based on their exportation as means of gaining influence
in world politics. But because they lack the capacity in most cases they choose to act in cooperation with
other like-minded states.
Following the two world wars the number of small states and diplomatic role have rapidly increased.
Small states are defined by the lack of sources that makes a state a great or a small power. In order to make
up for their vulnerability that stems from the lack of power, these states need apply to diplomacy more
than the other states. They use diplomacy as a platform that bring them together and gain influence in
this way.
Hence the relations among these actors can also take different shapes depending on which actors are
involved and their numbers. Diplomatic relation of two states is defined by bilateral diplomacy. If more
than two states are involved then this is called multilateral diplomacy. This is the kind of diplomatic
relation that middle powers and small states prefer. Great powers on the other hand apply to both
ways, and even use bilateral diplomacy, depending solely on their own capacities. There is another
kind of diplomatic relation that takes place between state and non-state actor and defined by the term
polylateral. Polylateral diplomacy becomes more common as the number of non-states actors involved
in international diplomacy increase each and everyday.

28
 1
Diplomacy

LO 4 “Differentiate and describe different types of

diplomatic engagement”

The world of diplomacy no longer functions through only embassies and diplomats. New types of
diplomatic engagement carried out by new actors have appeared in international politics due to the new
needs that old diplomacy cannot cover. It is sometimes non-official individuals - celebrities, academics,
sportsmen or ordinary citizens - or institutions - international organisations, private corporations,
NGOs - taking part in diplomatic missions involving environmental, humanitarian or peace building
issues, and sometimes it is diplomats leaving the embassies and working in the field for the same ends.
Therefor, the scope of diplomacy has expanded significantly. This enables us to point out and define

Summary
different types of diplomatic engagement. These can also be considered as different diplomatic methods.
Some of these methods have been used since the early practices of diplomacy while others belong only
to the twenty-first century. As the international system transforms so does diplomacy due to the need for
new methods to be applied to new situations. There are various types of diplomacy that have appeared
like that. In many cases different methods are used together. Therefore, it is not easy to separate the types
of diplomacy precisely. Still some major types can be spotted.
The first one would be to differentiate between open and secret diplomacy. Secret diplomacy refers to the
secret meetings and negotiations that take place without the knowledge of people, while open diplomacy
suggests that diplomatic negotiations should be with the knowledge of the public. The discussion about
the benefits and drawbacks of both diplomacies has been on the agenda of diplomacy for a very long
time while in practice both types are still implemented.
Another type of diplomacy is the conference diplomacy, which is the main instrument for multilateral
diplomacy but also serves as a base for bilateral diplomatic meetings. Although power politics play a role
in conference diplomacy as well, it provides an important opportunity for the participation different
states in international decision making. It is also an opportunity for small states to come together and
build a power block that can influence these decisions.
One of the oldest and most controversial types of diplomacy is coercive diplomacy. Although many
approaches do not include coercion within the context of diplomacy or deem it as the failure of diplomacy,
it is true that this method has been used by states as long as the history of diplomacy. Although there is
not a consensus about coercion it is regarded more acceptable when it is used for humanitarian purposes
like preventing or stopping a conflict. This is related to another type of diplomacy called crises diplomacy.
Crisis diplomacy deals with the management and solution of crises. In a globalised world no crisis is local
anymore and becomes a concern of the international community. Although in contemporary world
crises vary from humanitarian to economic, health to environmental, armed conflicts constitute the
priority of crisis diplomacy, which usually leads to the intervention of a states or a coalition of states
and international organisations. The legal framework for these kind of interventions has been offered
by United Nations through several formulations such as humanitarian intervention or the responsibility
to protect. Still the attempts to solve conflicts and crises have inspired the formulation of new types of
diplomacy such as the track-two and multitrack diplomacies. Track-two diplomacy refers to the unofficial
means of finding a solution to conflicts while multitrack diplomacy draws a more detailed framework
that foresees a cooperation also with official diplomacy for a more efficient conflict resolution.
Another type of diplomacy is economic diplomacy. Although economy has always played a determining
role in international relations, its impact has increased exponentially with globalisation. Now more than
ever national economies are tied to each other in an interdependent relation, so are economic and politics.
Hence economic diplomacy includes both negotiations and decision-making in international economic
relations and the implementation of foreign policy by using economic means to achieve political goals.
The expanding role of economics has also brought new actors to the world of diplomacy such as private
corporations or even individuals as the beneficiaries of economic diplomacy and opened the door for an
other related type of diplomacy that is defined as business diplomacy.
The type of diplomacy where individuals play a more decisive role is public diplomacy. Public diplomacy
is basically about a state’s domestic and international image and thus targets both domestic and foreign
publics. The aim is to influence these publics and gain their support for state policies. Although this is
not a new practice, the technological developments, especially those in information and communication
technologies has widened the scope of public diplomacy dramatically. Likewise the same technological
developments have also introduced the emergence of digital diplomacy, which means the use of digital
platforms by diplomatic agents.

29
1
Definition and Importance of Diplomacy

1 Diplomacy manages _______. 6 Which of the following is not one of the tasks
a. Foreign policy of diplomacy according to Hans Morgenthau?
b. Economic issues a. determining objectives
c. Humanitarian issues b. assessing the objectives of other nations
Test Yourself

d. Environmental issues c. impose its objectives to other nations

e. All d. determining to what extent its objectives are
compatible with the objectives of other nations
e. employing the means suited to the pursuit of its
2 Which of the following is not among the objectives.
functions of diplomacy?
a. Representation 7 Which of the following is an example of
b. Negotiations small state diplomacy?
c. Monitorring a. Congress of Vienna
d. Secret intelligence b. Holy Alliance
e. Contribution to international order c. Non- alignement
d. Paris Peace Conference
e. Treaty of Westphalia
3 The book Guide to Diplomatic Practice
belongs to _______.
8 What is Polylateralism?
a. Cardinal Richelieu
b. Hugo Grotius a. Relations between two states
b. Relations between more than two states
c. Harold Nicolson
c. Relations between intergovernmental
d. Henry Kissinger organisations
e. Ernest Satow d. Relations between state-entities and non-state
entities
4 According to Machiavelli which is not among e. Relations between non-state entities
the duties of a diplomatist?
a. carry out peaceful relations with other states.
9 Which of the following types of diplomacy is
about state image?
b. to submit advice on policy to his own prince
c. involve sabotaging the activities of diplomatic a. Track two diplomacy
rivals b. Multitrack diplomacy
d. to engage in formal negotiations, c. Public diplomacy
d. Digital diplomacy
e. to obtain information and report it home
e. Open diplomacy

5 Which of the following writers have 10 Which of the following includes the tracks of
mentioned the role of state system in diplomacy in multi-track diplomacy?
their theories? a. Unilateral, bilateral, multilateral, polylateral
a. Machiavelli and Satow b. Cultural, public, celebrity, sports
b. Morgenthau and Richelieu c. Government. non-government professional,
c. Grotius and Kissinger business, private citizen, research-training-
education, activism, religion. funding.
d. Machiavelli and Nicolson
d. Coercive, defence, military, gunboat
e. Guicciardini and Satow
e. Economic, business, corporate, commercial,
financial

30
 1
Diplomacy

1. e If your answer is incorrect, review the 6. c If your answer is incorrect, review the
section on “What is Diplomacy?” section on “What is Diplomacy?”

2. d If your answer is incorrect, review the 7. c If your answer is incorrect, review the

Answer Key for “Test Yourself”

section on “What is Diplomacy?” section on “Diplomatic Relations”

3. e If your answer is incorrect, review the 8. d If your answer is incorrect, review the
section on “What is Diplomacy?” section on “Diplomatic Relations”

4. a If your answer is incorrect, review the 9. c If your answer is incorrect, review the
section on “What is Diplomacy?” section on “Types of Diplomacy”

5. d If your answer is incorrect, review the 10. c If your answer is incorrect, review the
section on “What is Diplomacy?” section on “Types of Diplomacy”

31
1
Definition and Importance of Diplomacy

“According to an approach the recent developments in

technology and the involvement of new issues and actors
have actually brought the end of diplomacy. Do you agree?”

Since the time it has been institutionalised, the content of diplomacy has been
evolving. This had led to many debates about old and new diplomacy. The final
point that this debate has arrived in the twenty-first century is that the end of
Suggested Answers for “Your Turn”

diplomacy has come. According to this claim states have ceased to be the major
actor of international relations with the involvement of non-state actors such as
non-governmental organisations, private corporations and individuals. Besides
due to the enlargement of its scope to include humanitarian, environmental,
social and other issues diplomacy has lost its focus and disrupted. But the most
deteriorating impact was made by the new technologies. States no longer can
control information as they used to do. Even the most confidential diplomatic
meeting and negotiations can be revealed and spread the world in matter of
your turn 1 minutes. All these factors can be evaluated as the end of diplomacy. But on the
other hand another point of view is also possible. First of all although states do
no longer have monopoly over diplomatic relations and have lost power vis-a-vis
other actors, they still are the most powerful and influential actors. But more
importantly there is an essence of diplomacy which has never changed, that is
diplomacy has always provided the means of communication in international
relations, may it be between states or between individuals. That is why it has
been defined as the master institution of international relations and for as long
as there will be international relations, there will also be diplomacy. Therefore
instead evaluating the new developments as the end of diplomacy, it is better to
see them as the expansion and enrichment of diplomacy.

“Do you agree that multilateral diplomacy is a useful ground

for small state diplomacy?”

A small state is defined in terms of power deficit, both hard and soft. Besides they
also lack the sources to close this deficit. Therefore, they need other tools that
would provide them with some power and influence in international relations,
at least in matters that are their priority concern. Since they cannot do this on
their own, they need other states to act together for the same ends. Multilateral
diplomacy becomes instrumental at this point and serves as a platform that
these states can come together, interact, cooperate, make coalitions and act
together. This way they gain influence that they each lack individually. The
most obvious display of this phenomenon is the votings in the United Nations,
where some states vote in the same direction and have the majority of the votes
to reach a resolution. Multilateral platforms also help small state diplomacy
your turn 2 in cases where they do not have diplomatic missions in certain countries and
have to chance to meet with the representatives of such states. In these senses
it is true that multilateral diplomacy is a useful ground for small states. But
there is another aspect of multilateral diplomacy. As globalisation continues
to bind them together it becomes inevitable for states to come together and
reach joint decisions about the ever-growing number of issues that concern
them all. Therefore, multilateral diplomacy is not only a type of diplomatic
engagement that is preferred by the small states but is an instrument imposed
by the international conjuncture. Critical issues that are considered in terms of
national interest by great powers become the scene of their dominations and
leave little room for small state diplomacy. And by all means there is always a
possibility that a state - most probably one that can afford it - may not follow
the outcomes of a multilateral diplomatic initiative.

32
 1
Diplomacy

“What would be the historical events that contribute to the

development of conference diplomacy in your opinion?”

The first example of conference diplomacy is the Treaty of Westphalia in

Suggested Answers for “Your Turn”

1648. Congress of Vienna in 1815 constitutes another important event
for the development of conference diplomacy. In spite the high number of
participants, negotiations were dominated four victors of the Napoleonic Wars;
Austria, Russia, Prussia and Great Britain, as was the international system after
the Congress. France, although it was the losing party, was included in the
negotiations at certain points but other than it, no other state was included
in the decision making even if the decisions concerned them. Although the
Congress of Vienna was dismantled the same year, a series of conferences
followed in the next eight years. Almost a hundred years later in 1919 Paris
Peace Conference assembled, again with the dominance of the triumph states,
your turn 3 this time Great Britain, France, United States and to a certain extent Italy. But
two major states of the international system, Germany and the Soviet Union
were excluded from the peace process, which later on proved the importance of
inclusion in diplomatic negotiations for the international relations. League of
Nations, which was established to institutionalise the peace failed for the very
same reason. Most states did not prefer to carry out diplomatic negotiations
within the League, not even in the cases where multiple actors were involved
and it was mostly excluded from international diplomacy. Still in the 25 years it
existed, it constituted the first example of conference diplomacy in the context
of an international organisation. The lessons learnt from the insufficiencies of
the League paved the way to United Nations, which demonstrates conference
diplomacy in the sense that is widely accepted.

33
1
References
Barston, R. P. (2013). Modern Diplomacy (New York:
Routledge)
Berridge, G. R. (2010). Diplomacy: Theory and Practice
(London: Palgrave Macmillan )
Berridge, G. R. (2001.a). “Machiavelli” in G. R.
Berridge, Maurice Keens-Soper and T. G. Otte,
Diplomatic Theory from Machiavelli to Kissinger
(New York: Palgrave)
Berridge, G. R. (2001.b) “Guicciardini” in G. R.
Berridge, Maurice Keens-Soper and T. G. Otte,
Diplomatic Theory from Machiavelli to Kissinger
(New York: Palgrave)
Berridge, G. R. (2001.c) “Grotius” in G. R. Berridge,
Maurice Keens-Soper and T. G. Otte, Diplomatic
Theory from Machiavelli to Kissinger (New York:
Palgrave)
Berridge, G. R. and Alan James (2003). A Dictionary
of Diplomacy. (New York: Palgrave Macmillan)
Brown, Garrett W., Iain McLean, Alistair McMillan
(2018). The Concise Oxford Dictionary of Politics
and International Relations. (New York: Oxford
University Press)
Bull, Hedley (2002). The Anarchical Society: A Study of
Order in World Politics (NewYork: Palgrave)
Devetak, Richard, Anthony Burk and Jim George
(2012). An Introduction to International Relations
(New York: Cambridge University Press)
Efstathopoulos, Charalampos (2018). “Middle Powers
and the Behavioural Model.” Global Society, 32:1,
47-69
Gilboa, Eytan (2016). “Digital Diplomacy” in
Costas M. Constantinou, Pauline Kerr and Paul
Sharp (eds.) The SAGE Handbook of Diplomacy.
(London:SAGE Publications)
Grotius, Hugo. The Rights of War and Peace.
(Indianopolis: Liberty Fund)
Huijgh, Ellen (2016). “Public Diplomacy” in
Costas M. Constantinou, Pauline Kerr and Paul
Sharp (eds.) The SAGE Handbook of Diplomacy.
(London:SAGE Publications)
Jakobsen ,Peter Viggo (2016). “Coersive Diplomacy”
in Costas M. Constantinou, Pauline Kerr and Paul
Sharp (eds.) The SAGE Handbook of Diplomacy.
(London:SAGE Publications)
James, Alan (2016). “Diplomatic Relations between
States ”in Costas M. Constantinou, Pauline Kerr
and Paul Sharp (eds.) The SAGE Handbook of
Diplomacy. (London:SAGE Publications)
Jones, Peter (2015). Track Two Diplomacy In Theory And
Practice. (California: Stanford University Press)
34
Definition and Importance of Diplomacy
Jönsson, Christer (2002) “Diplomacy, Bargaining and
Negotiation.” in Walter Carlsnaes, Thomas Risse,
Beth A Simmons (eds.) Handbook of International
Relations. (London:SAGE Publications)
Hamilton, Keith, Richard Langhorne (2010). The
Practice of Diplomacy: Its evolution, theory and
administration, (New York: Routlege)
Kaufmann, Johan (1996). Conference Diplomacy: An
Introductory Analysis (London:Macmillan)
Keens-Sope, Maurice (2001). “Wicquefort ” in G. R.
Berridge, Maurice Keens-Soper and T. G. Otte,
Diplomatic Theory from Machiavelli to Kissinger
(New York: Palgrave)
Langhorne, Richard (2005). “The Diplomacy of Non-
State Actors,” Diplomacy and Statecraft, 16:2, 331-
339.
Nicolson, Harold (1942). Diplomacy (London:
Oxford University Press)
Nye, Joseph (2004). Soft Power: The Means to Success
in World Politics, (New York: Public Affairs)
Morgenthau, Hans (1948) Politics Among Nations:
The Struggle for Power and Peace (New York: Alfred
A. Knopf )
Rana, Kishan S. (2011). 21st Century Diplomacy A
Practitioner’s Guide (New York: Continuum)
Otte, T. G. (2001.a). “Satow” in G. R. Berridge,
Maurice Keens-Soper and T. G. Otte, Diplomatic
Theory from Machiavelli to Kissinger (New York:
Palgrave)
Otte, T. G. (2001.b). “Kissinger” in G. R. Berridge,
Maurice Keens-Soper and T. G. Otte, Diplomatic
Theory from Machiavelli to Kissinger (New York:
Palgrave)
Richelieu, Political Testament of Cardinal Richelieu,
(Wisconsin: Wisconsin University Press)
Satow, Ernest (1932). A Guide to Diplomatic Practice
(London:Longman)
Spies, Yolanda Kemp Spies (2016). “Middle Power
Diplomacy” in Costas M. Constantinou, Pauline
Kerr and Paul Sharp (eds.) The SAGE Handbook of
Diplomacy. (London:SAGE Publications)
Wight, Martin (2002). Power Politics, (London :
Continuum)
Wiseman, Geoffrey (2010). “Polylateralism:
Diplomacy’s Third Dimension” in Public
Diplomacy, 4:1, 24-39
 The Historical Evolution of
Chapter 2 Diplomacy: First Practices
After completing this chapter you will be able to:

1 2
Learning Outcomes

grasp the birth of the first practices of understand the evolution of these practices
diplomacy throughout centuries and different civilizations

Chapter Outline Key Terms

Ancient Diplomacy Ancient Diplomacy
Medieval Diplomacy Medieval Diplomacy
Ancient methods of diplomacy

36

Diplomacy
INTRODUCTION
It is widely accepted, as Hamilton mentions,that
the beginnings of diplomacy occurred when a
human being decided for the first time that hearing
a message is better than eating the messenger
(Hamilton, 1995: 7). At this point, with the
decision to assure the safety of a messenger, the
primitive rules of diplomacy began to emerge.
Messengers were sent from one tribe to another
mainly to make peace in a rudimentary way, based
on custom and even taboo. These earliest types of
diplomacy in primitive societies took the shape of
exchanging gifts, in a sense, to buy peace.
When literate civilizations emerged, primitive
face to face systems transformed into more
sophisticated exchange systems between organized
urban communities. In other words, the invention
of writing and the transition from pre-historic
to ancient times signal an upsurge of diplomatic
structures as writing was and is still the key
technology of diplomacy. In this regard, diplomacy
in a more structured sense appeared at the same
time and same place where loose forms of tribal
organizations gradually developed into the first
forms of states. These first state-like polities with
government, law, taxation, education systems and
literature which were formed in Mesopotamia
and the Eastern Mediterranean provide the great
tradition of diplomacy in the ancient world (Cohen,
2001). Having appeared sometime during the third
millennium BCE in Mesopotamia and Eastern
Mediterranean, the essentials of the institution of
diplomacy were transmitted from one civilization
to others throughout ages, e.g., from Babylon to
Persia, and from ancient Greece, to Rome.
Although Greece is accepted as the birthplace of
Western civilization, diplomacy was not born in Greece
in contrast to what is widely thought. Diplomacy
was born thousands of years before ancient Greece
committed to diplomacy as a civilization.
Nevertheless, the word “diplomacy” is itself
borrowed from ancient Greek. It is derived from
the word “diploma” meaning two fold. In the
Roman Empire, the word was used to describe the
passes, comparable to the modern day passport,
which were stamped on metal plates. This word was
later extended to cover other metallic documents,
especially those embodying arrangements with
foreign communities (Roberts, 2009)
2
The features of the first exchange systems of
organized polities resemble in many ways the
diplomacy as we now understand. They were
conducted by envoys in a formal framework of
law; and they were based upon the principles of
reciprocity. With the emergence of the state system,
the methods of diplomacy were transformed from
primitive courses into trade agreements, dynastic
marriages, and military alliances.
In line with this, the present chapter will analyze
the long history of the evolution of diplomacy,
beginning from the Mesopotamian civilizations
and ending with the beginning of the Middle Ages.
ANCIENT DIPLOMACY
The Beginning of Institutional
Diplomatic Practice:
Mesopotamian Diplomacy
The first system of city-states occurred in
Mesopotamia between the 4th and the first
millennium. The system was mainly based on that of
the Sumerians in the south, Babylonian and Akadian
in the center and Assyrians in the north. Within
this system, which shows some general patterns
of early international relations, Mesopotamia was
characterized by steady interaction basing on both
trade and security issues (Bloom, 2014). It looked
like a system of balance of power since no single
entity enjoyed significant superiority. As in the
modern international relations, the more the state
system based on balance of power the diplomacy
became more important.
Figure 2.1
Source: http://www.indepthinfo.com/history-ancient/
mesopotamia.htm
37
2
The Historical Evolution of Diplomacy: First Practices
Sumerians were the earliest practitioners of
diplomacy (3000-2370 BCE). The diplomatic
tradition emerged from this site mainly because
the Sumerians were the civilization which invented
writing sometime in the 4th millennium BCE. In
the meantime, Sumeria was the site of the first
urban communities consisted of complex social,
economic and political structures each of which
was ruled by an independent King.
Diplomacy was used by Sumerians with
a motivation to end conflicts through the
conventional method of sending messengers with
the messages written on clay tablets in cuneiform.
Sumerian was used as the lingua franca of diplomacy
until the Akhadian hegemony was established in
the region.
The first known diplomatic letter was a message
sent by the King of Ebla (in northern Syria) to the
kingdom of Hamazi (north of Iran today), which
shows a similar style of language and contend of
modern diplomacy. This letter provides a clear
evidence of the existence of a well performing
mechanism, in which both sides knew the rules.
The letter was not written by the king himself,
but through the voice of an official, and was not
directed to the Hamazi King but to his envoy
(Podany, 2010: 27). Since the Ebla region had
priority in trade, diplomacy was mainly a part of
their trade relations, the reflection of which could
also be seen in the Ebla letter.
Figure 2.2
“You are my brother and I am your brother. As
a brother I will grant you whatever you desire, and
you will grant me whatever I desire. Give me good
work-animals. Please send them. Ten beams of
38
boxwood, two sledges of boxwood, I Ibubu, have
given the messenger, for you.” (Podany, 2010: 27).
The concept of brotherhood included in this
letter served as the central argument on which
all superseding diplomatic relationship would be
centered. The expression of brotherhood is at the
same time a sign that indicate the equal relationship
between the kings. Several characteristic elements
appear in all similar documents at this period,
such as the concept of brotherhood, sending and
accepting messengers, exchanging gifts, dynastic
marriages, and mutual assistance in case of conflict
(Lafont, 2001: 40).
After the conquest of Sumer by the Akkadian,
the Akkadian language supplanted Sumerian as
the language of diplomacy in conformity with the
political situation. The Akkadian King Salmon is
accepted as the founder of the military tradition
in Mesopotamia. Diplomacyand in history as well
more related to trade issues than security issues
in the Akkadian period. In terms of diplomacy
,representatives were sent only to conquered areas in
order to retain their control in these areas.
Babylon, established around 1894 BCE,
was another polity which had used diplomacy
intensively and effectively in the ancient Near
East. Diplomacy as a means of foreign relationswas
intensified particularly under the rule of Babylon’s
sixth and most known King Hammurabi.
Hammurabi, best known in the modern day for his
law code, made skillful use of diplomacy to increase
his power. Hammurabi led the establishment of
careful alliances which were broken when necessary;
and through political maneuvers, he held the entire
region under Babylonian control. In the period of
Hammurabi’s kingdom, diplomacy, particularly in
the shape of forming alliances, began to be used
much more intensively also by other rulers in
order to reach their objectives. However, the reign
of Hammurabi was in many ways the end of the
Mesopotamian political prominence; and the new
era was dominated by the Egyptian civilization.
One of the earliest and most informative
resources regarding our knowledge on Near East
diplomacy is the Mari cuneiform archives, which
consist of more than 20 thousand letters, legal
documents, diplomatic correspondences, and
treaties written on clay tablets. The majority of the

Diplomacy
tablets are dated between 1800 BCE and 1750 BCE
and they shed important light on our knowledge
regarding the political, social, and economic and,
needless to say, diplomatic practice of the period.
Figure 2.3 The state archives in Mari, built around
1900 BCE
Figure 2.4 A cuneiform tablet from the archives of Mari
was discovered in 1933, until which the earliest known
diplomatic archives were the Amarna letter and Hittite
treaties covering the fourteenth and thirteenth centuries.
Some examples of diplomatic conduct in the
ancient near east:
- touching the throat meant the agreement
was accepted
- seizing the hem of the garment meant an
alliance was concluded
- letting the hem of the garment meant the
breach of an allience or a treaty.
Documents found in the Mari archives contain
evidence of arbitration and mediation, diplomatic
codes of conduct, the exchange of envoys and the
description of their missions. We learn from these
documents that diplomatic relations were initiated
2
by sending a messenger and gifts. Envoys were
appointed for specific missions with a specific set
of instructions; and the type of the diplomatic
envoys varied according to the circumstances. They
can be simple messengers who carry royal mail, but
they can also be plenipotentiary ministers (Lafont,
2001: 45). Diplomatic envoys were chosen
from among senior officials of administration.
Their primary function involved coordinating
diplomatic efforts (Hamilton, 1995:8). Some of
them were regarded explicitly as the king’s personal
representatives. Diplomatic envoys were protected
by their diplomatic status and they were free to
journey across boundaries even in times of crisis.
In other words, they had a kind of “diplomatic
immunity” which was evident in many documents
that found in Mari and later in other archives. Even
to attest their status, diplomats seemed to have a
kind of “diplomatic passport”, on which the name
of the holder, the description of his delegation and
his destination were written (Lafont, 2001: 46).
Another set of documents which are directly
concerned with diplomacy includes the Amarna
letters, dating back to the second half of the second
millennium (15th to 13th centuries BCE). These
letters were first found in Egypt (El-Amarna),
Syria (Ugarit), Babylonia and Hittite Anatolia first
in 1887. The known tablets are currently 382 in
number. These letters, written on clay tablets and
exchanged between Egyptian pharaohs and their
Babylonian, Assyrian and Anatolian counterparts,
give valuable information about diplomatic
relations of this period. The structure of the inter-
state system of this Late Bronze Age period can
be defined as a system of a “Great Powers’ Club”
along with some vassal states dependent on Great
Kingdoms. The Great Power Club was composed
of five major kingdoms: the kingdom of Hatti, the
kingdom of Mittanni, the kingdom of Assyria, the
kingdom of Kassite of Babylon and the kingdom
of Egypt. The order of the system was a decisive
dynamic that pushed the diplomatic activity since
Kings, equal in power and status, strengthened
their positions and reinforced their political ends
by forming coalitions. Therefore, it can be said that
the essential underpinning of the system was the
diplomatic communication passed between them
(Bryce, 2003: 3-4). At the core of this diplomatic
39
2
The Historical Evolution of Diplomacy: First Practices

relationship, we find the Amarna letters which

contain information about:
Say to Naphurreya, the king of Egypt, my brother,
• Strategic-military cooperation, my son-in-law, whom I love and whom loves me:
• Treaty negotiations, Thus Tushratta, Great King, the king of Mitanni,
• Dynastic marriages, you father-in-law, who loves you, your brother. For
• Trade regulations me all goes well. For you may all go well. For Tiye,
• Strengthening friendly relations your mother, for your household, may all go well.
• Negotiating alliances For Tadu-Heba, my daughter, your wife, for the rest
Most of the letters were received by the of your wives, for your sons, for your magnates, for
Egyptians; only a few of them were written by the your chariots, for your horses, for your troops, for
Pharaoh. There are two types of correspondence your country, and for whatever else belongs to you,
in Amarna Letters: letters between equal Great may all go very, very well.” El-Amarna Letters EA 27
Powers and letters covering domestic affairs
between Egypt and its vassals. The first type of
letters cover the relations between Egypt, Hattie,
Mitanni, Assyria and Babylonia, which constitute
a kind of Great Powers’ Club. Members of this
“Great Powers’v Club” refer to each other as
brothers, signifying the equal status among them.
This concept of brotherhood provided the base
for alliances.
Letters were written in a specific pattern; first,
they identify who was writing and to whom the
letter was written, then report their wishes to the
other. The rest of the letter contained generally a
request or the list of the items being sent.
Letters passed between Egypt and its
vassals constitute the largest component of
the archives. They are different in contend,
reflecting the unequal relationship between
them. The relationship between vassal states and
the overlord was not a kind of brotherhood, but
rather a father and son relationship (Hamilton,
1995: 9).Vassals had to obey their lords; and Sample To the king of the land of Egypt speak!
therefore, the Egyptian vassals constantly So (says) Ashur-uballit, the king of the land of
declared and affirmed loyalty to the Pharaoh Ashur: To your house, to your country, to your war
through their letters (Cohen, 2000: 8). chariotry and to your army well-being!I have sent
you my envoy to visit you and to see your country.
“Say to the king, my lord, my Sun, my god: That my forefathers until now have not sent, I
Message of Zitriyara, your servant, the dirt under have sent you today: one fine chariot, two horses,
your feet, and the mire you tread on. I fall at the feet (and) a jewel from precious stone, a date shaped
of the king, my lord, my Sun, my god, 7 times and 7 bead from genuine lapis lazuli as a good-wish
times, both on the stomach and on the back. I have present, have directed unto you. My envoy, whom
heard the message of the king, my lord, my Sun, my I have sent you (only) to visit (you), do not hold
god, to his servant. I herewith make the preparations him back! May he visit and leave! Your opinion
in accordance with the command of the king, my lord, and the situation of your country may he observe,
my Sun, my god.” El-Amarna Letters EA 213 then may he leave. El-Amarna Letters EA 15

40
 2
Diplomacy

Despite the intense diplomatic relationship The battle of Kadesh resulted in heavy casualties
between the political entities of the Near East since both sides, but neither was able to win the war.
during the Late Bronze Age fixed embassies never The battle between the Egyptians and the Hittites
existed. This relationship is characterized rather by was a rare case in a period of a ‘balance of power
an itinerant diplomacy as Lafont stated. Envoys system’ operating between the four great powers;
were sent for ad hoc purposes; however, some albeit there were some conflicts between them they
diplomatic missions could be extended to more were mostly smaller in their scale. The treaty was
than twenty years (Lafont, 2001: 50). intended to establish ‘peace and brotherhood for
It should also be noted that the political order all time’ between the two kings. In fact, after the
of the whole area during this period was structured treaty was signed, Hittites and Egyptians entered
on divine principles; hence diplomatic relations into a new relationship with each other in which
were thought to be a part of the divine, in other they shared their knowledge and experience. The
words relations between gods. Since kings were Hittites shared with the Egyptians their skills in
conceived of the earthly representatives of gods, the making metal weapons and the Egyptians shared
ultimate parties involved in diplomatic relations with the Hittites their well-developed knowledge
were the gods. Agreements concluded between on agriculture. Dynastic marriages organized
parties were deemed as oaths of gods (Hamilton, between the two kings were also influential in this
1995: 10). Therefore, oaths had a profound new collaborative relationship (Bryce, 2006).
place in diplomatic conduct; and the highest
place was given to the swearing moment during
the ceremonies. Another general feature of the In Practice
Late Bronze Age diplomacy was that diplomatic
commitments were not concluded between states
but between kings individually. Therefore, when a The Hittite version of the treaty is at the
king died agreements or alliances had to be renewed Istanbul Archaeology Museum
with the new king (Lafont, 2001: 55).
A few centuries after Amarna diplomacy, another
diplomatic system emerged between Hittite and
Egypt. Hittite diplomacy was also a well-developed
system, embracing all preceding diplomatic tools
and rules of conduct. The nuance of the Hittite
system was its different formulization which based
mainly on treaties. These treaties were concluded
either between kings or the Hittite King and his
vassals. They were written in a structured pattern
and they included the information about the
Hittite King, conditions that brought the parties
into forming an alliance, reciprocal obligations, a
list of witnesses and the rules to be applied in case
of disloyalty (Lafont, 2001: 53).
Hittite diplomacy is best known for the first
peace treaty signed in 1270 BCE between Egyptian
King Ramses II and Hittite King Hattusili III after To relate what you have learned to life, There are
the battle of Kadesh in Syria. The Kadesh treaty many such museums in Turkey, nearly in every city
was signed to end the long war between the Hittites or region. By witnessing the findings of ancient ci-
and the Egyptians, which lasted for nearly two vilizations, you can easily relate what you have lear-
centuries for the domination over Syrian region. ned in this chapter to life.

41
2
The Historical Evolution of Diplomacy: First Practices
As the Egyptian and Hittite Empires weakened,
the Assyrian state emerged and reached its zenith
during the 8th and 7th centuries BCE. In order to
manage their relations with the powers they were
surrounded by, the Assyrians were dependent on
diplomacy since their early stages. The Assyrian
diplomatic correspondence showed that the main
focus of their diplomatic relations involved military
affairs. Therefore, it can be said that Assyrians
had shifted the emphasis away from the general
tendency of greeting toward more pragmatic
aspects of politics (Feldman, 2006: 132). Assyrians
used both war and diplomacy in order to achieve
their goals. The most interesting point regarding
Assyrian diplomacy involved the intelligence
gathering activities. Assyrians made a full use of all
kinds of sources and adopted a variety of channels
to collect intelligence. They used these channels
both overtly through official envoys and covertly
through spies (Honggeng, 2004).
In the final analysis, it can be said that the
beginning of diplomacy as a system traces back
to the traditions of the ancient Near East. Great
Tradition of diplomacy which would be transferred
from Mesopotamia to the ancient Greece and
Rome, and later from Rome to the Byzantine
Empire, and then to the West from them, forming
the modern and permanent Westphalian system of
diplomacy. As Cohen mentions, this great tradition
is not just about hand shaking, diplomatic notes or
gift exchange, but about the concept of an accepted
system (Cohen, 2001: 36). The disappearance of
the Near Eastern system began with the newly
emerging empires with a universal claim, and later
with the Hellenization of the East and the vanishing
of the cuneiform culture (Lafont, 2001: 57).
Ancient China
Ancient China is another civilization where we
could look for the origins of diplomacy as a system.
The first records of Chinese diplomacy date from
the 1st millennium BCE. Ancient China can be
categorized under two different periods regarding
the political structure of the time. The first is
the Warring States Era between 656-221 BCE,
characterized by the emergence of sovereign states.
42
It was a period of a balance of a power system, so
international relations was based on great power
rivalry and ephemeral alliances (Hamilton, 1995:
12). The Great Powers had leagues, missions and
an organized system of correspondence between
their many warring states. Diplomacy was based on
bilateral relations and missions related to fleeting
alliances including maneuvers, secrecy and bribery
Chinese states had no permanent friends and
enemies; therefore, their strategies were ruthless
but still in an equilibrium. It is not surprising
that Sun-Tzu, one of the best known military
strategists, and his thoughts were influential at this
period. Early records indicate that Sun-Tzu lived
in the Warring state era and his very famous work
The Art of War was influenced by the increasing
violence of this era. In contrast to its name, the
book does not really focus on war time strategies,
but on strategies that would prevent the outbreak
of war. The core of the strategy for Sun Tzu is not
to defeat the enemy in battle, but to repress him
without fighting. Sun Tzu therefore focuses on the
pre-war period as the realm for strategy and hence
pays particular attention to diplomacy at this
stage. Sun-Tzu makes a number of suggestions for
the use of diplomacy mostly before the war, but
even usable during and after the war, all of which
seem to be very important to be a good diplomacy
player in international relations. He first advices
to attack the enemy’s strategy before attacking
the enemy itself. He then mentions indirect
methods for manipulating the enemy’s actions in
order to keep away the danger of being attacked.
Another strategy Sun-Tzu suggests is to be flexible
in strategy in regard to changing circumstances
(Szykman, 1995). Finally, his famous saying of
“all war is based on deception” is another piece
where his thoughts could be related to the logic
of diplomacy. Sun-Tzu advices that, “when we are
able to attack, we must seem unable; when using our
forces, we must appear inactive; when we are near, we
must make the enemy believe we are far away; when
far away, we must make him believe we are near.”
Hence deception is worthy of consideration for
both sides; and this part of Sun-Tzu’s thoughts has
a link with spying, which he highlights in detail.

Diplomacy
In Practice
A piece from Sun-Tzu’s Art of War over
Spies and Spying in Foreign Policy
[4] ... what enables the wise sovereign and
the good general to strike and conquer, and
achieve things beyond the reach of ordinary men,
is foreknowledge. [5] Now this foreknowledge
cannot be elicited from spirits; it cannot be
obtained inductively from experience, nor by
any deductive calculation. [6] Knowledge of the
enemy’s dispositions can only be obtained from
other men. [7] Hence the use of spies, of whom
there are five classes: (1) Local spies; (2) inward
spies; (3) converted spies; (4) doomed spies; (5)
surviving spies. [8]. When these five kinds of
spy are all at work, none can discover the secret
system. This is called “divine manipulation of
the threads.” It is the sovereign’s most precious
faculty. [9] Having local spies means employing
the services of the inhabitants of a district. [10].
Having inward spies, making use of officials of
the enemy.[11]. Having converted spies, getting
2
hold of the enemy’s spies and using them for our
own purposes. [12]. Having doomed spies, doing
certain things openly for purposes of deception,
and allowing our spies to know of them and report
them to the enemy.[13]. Surviving spies, finally,
are those who bring back news from the enemy’s
camp. [14]. Hence it is that which none in the
whole army are more intimate relations to be
maintained than with spies. None should be more
liberally rewarded. In no other business should
greater secrecy be preserved.[15[. Spies cannot
be usefully employed without a certain intuitive
sagacity. [16]. They cannot be properly managed
without benevolence and straightforwardness.
[17]. Without subtle ingenuity of mind, one
cannot make certain of the truth of their reports.
[18]Be subtle! be subtle! and use your spies for
every kind of business. [19]. If a secret piece of
news is divulged by a spy before the time is ripe,
he must be put to death together with the man to
whom the secret was told. [21]The enemy’s spies
who have come to spy on us must be sought out,
tempted with bribes, led away and comfortably
housed. Thus they will become converted spies
and available for our service.[22]. It is through
the information brought by the converted spy
that we are able to acquire and employ local and
inward spies. [23]. It is owing to his information,
again, that we can cause the doomed spy to carry
false tidings to the enemy. [24]. Lastly, it is by
his information that the surviving spy can be
used on appointed occasions.[25]. The end and
aim of spying in all its five varieties is knowledge
of the enemy; and this knowledge can only be
derived, in the first instance, from the converted
spy. Hence it is essential that the converted spy
be treated with the utmost liberality.
43
2
The Historical Evolution of Diplomacy: First Practices
The tradition of equal diplomacy ended with
Qin dynasty’s unification of China in 221 BCE.
With the new coercive universal empire, China’s
diplomatic dealing with the foreign world lessened
to level of defense and trade issues. Trade issues were
Trade issues were not the most important focus of
the relationship with the immediate neighbors of
the Chinese empire, but of the relationship with
the distant world. The immediate neighborhood
relations centered on border issues or exchange of
technology.
The diplomatic dealing with countries situated
distant from China was mostly based on trade.
These countries were engaged in diplomatic practice
with China in order to reach Chinese goods; on
the other hand, for Chinese rulers, these relations
were accepted for their tribute. Chinese emperors
saw foreigners who try to contact with China as
potential subjects; and tribute in this relationship
was the gift given as a part of diplomatic exchange
(Bielenstein, 2005: 5-6).
Diplomatic missions passed both from China
to the foreign world and from the outside world
to China, but missions sent from China were
much lesser than the incoming ones. From China’s
perspective, foreign countries were ranked with
respect to one another and all envoys were not
met by the emperor directly. In a similar vein, gifts
were not always accepted. Imperial China had a
unilateral perspective regarding diplomacy, while
foreign countries held their dealing according to
an equal relationship.
In sum, although in the imperial period Chinese
diplomacy was grasped differently from the balance
of power perspective, diplomatic dealing at this
period embraced the entire range of diplomatic
relations. Diplomacy was used to offer good-will,
to discuss a protocol, to form alliances, to make
peace, to delineate borders, to spy, to arrange
marriages, to negotiate trade issues (Bielenstein,
2005: 7-8).
Ancient India
Diplomatic practices were quite systematically
designed in Ancient India but they were also quite
different from the coexistent systems in other
parts of the world. India had very little political
connection to the outside world until Alexander
the Great conquered its northern regions in 326
BCE. Subsequently, with the establishment of
44
the Mauryan Empire, which dominated ancient
India until 187 BCE, had changed the course of
diplomacy in India. The Mauryan Empire was
particularly active in diplomacy in order to extend
its influence both in politics and in religious
situation. This active diplomacy practice continued
for centuries until the Rajput Kingdoms gained
control and dominated the region by the 8th
century. After this time, India began to be isolated
from the rest of the world.
The general pattern of diplomacy in ancient
India can best be inferred from the work of
the famous ancient philosopher and statesman
Kautilya. While Kautilya’s book Arthshastra is
a systematic account of the significance, types
and patterns of diplomacy on one hand, it is a
great treatise of realism on the other. Kautilya is
widely accepted as the first great political realist in
history; and in conjunction with his approach to
international relations, his account on diplomacy
represents the same political realist tone.
Kautilya defined the state system as a ruthless
realistic system which was determined by self-
interest, compatible with the structure of the
existing state system of India in that time. India
at this period was mostly composed of a number
of small independent states, being in a rivalry with
each other with the exception of the Magadha
kingdom. Kautilya played an important role in the
fall of the Magadha kingdom and the rise to power
of the Mauryan dynasty. In fact, Kautiya was a
political realist; and the key theme of his theory
represented in his book was war. According to
Kautilya, war is what defines inter-state relations.
Kautilya defined six forms of foreign policy (from
Arthshastra 7.1.13 – 18).
• Peace: entering into a treaty; when the state
is weaker than the enemy, it should make
peace.
• War: attacking and doing injury; when the
state is stronger than the enemy, it should
make war.
• Non alignment: staying quiet; when the
state is equal with the enemy and neither
is capable of harming the other, the state
should stay quiet.
• Seeking shelter: When threatened by
a stronger enemy the state should seek
protection from another stronger state,
somewhat forming an alliance.

Diplomacy
• Shows of force: When the state is increasing
in capabilities, it should augment and
mobilize resources to prepare for war.
• Double-dealing: When a state seeks help for
attacking another state, it resorts to peace
and war at the same time with different
states.
As seen in his definition of foreign policy
strategies of states, the core theme is war and
diplomacy in this regard is only an extension of
warfare (Hamilton, 1995: 29). In other words,
Kautilya has put more emphasis on war at the
expense of diplomacy. However, this does not
mean that diplomacy was not an important
means in state relations. Rather, as mentioned
previously, India at this period of time was engaged
in extensive diplomatic exchange. In line with this
practice, Kautilya did not ignore the practice of
diplomacy in his work; rather, he discussed the role
of diplomacy through diplomats in detail and he
wrote an entire section about how to fight with the
weapon of diplomacy.
The Enemy of My Enemy is my Friend
Kautilya is most famous for outlining the foreign
policy principle of “the enemy of my enemy is my
friend” which can clearly be seen in his following
words; “Your neighbor is not a candidate for
alliance, only enemies of a neighboring country
shall be allies of the country”
Kautilya stated in his book that diplomats
should be chosen among successful officials
who are members of the administrative body.
2
He then classified diplomats in three categories
as plenipotentiary envoys; envoys, for specific
missions and messengers. For Kautilya, envoys
shall be assigned permanently for all states in the
immediate neighborhood.
From Kautilya’s work, along with other
valuable sources, we can derive that in Ancient
India, diplomatic dealings were well-developed
and structured, particularly in regard to diplomats
and the roles they played in diplomacy. There
were detailed rules of diplomatic immunities and
privileges of the inauguration and termination
of diplomatic missions and also of the selection
and duties of a diplomat. In Ancient India, the
functions of diplomats, or envoys as was named at
this time, were threefold (Kumar, 2014: 3).
• Declaration of war and peace
• Forging alliances
• Gathering intelligence overtly, and also
spying.
Spying was understood as an integral part of
diplomacy. All ambassadors were potential spies
with diplomatic immunity and in fact all diplomatic
representatives were expected to spy, engage in acts
of sabotage and attempt to secure defections from
the enemy’s army. (Boesche, 2003: 22)
Alliances as a Means of
Diplomacy: Diplomacy in Ancient
Greece
The principles and methods of Greek diplomacy
had been developed by the 5th century. However,
from Homeric records, we learn that before the
5th century, Greeks had used embassies as a means
of foreign affairs. Again in Homer’s Illiad and
Odyssey, the first elements of inter-state relations
could be found in conjunction with the Olympic
Games held in 776 BCE. It was an event where the
elite of Greece met and have important discussions.
However, it is also important to note that although
we could mention some system of diplomatic
practice, there was not a structured system of
diplomacy even after the 5th century, especially
when compared with the great tradition of the Near
East. Regardless of its being the cradle of the Western
civilization, ancient Greece can not be considered
as the golden era of diplomacy. Greeks, as Cohen
stated, had their indigenous customs reflecting their
common culture (Cohen, 2001: 31).
45
2
The Historical Evolution of Diplomacy: First Practices

The city-state system of which no single city-
state was powerful enough to establish hegemony,
such as the one we witnessed in certain periods
of time in the ancient Near East, compelled the
city-states to deal with each other as equals. This
structure caused a diplomatic traffic although this
traffic did not lead to the emergence of a fixed
system and an administrative structure. Diplomacy
remained, for the most part, rudimentary in
ancient Greece, but there is no doubt that a
pattern had emerged. The structure of the inter-
state system caused another diplomatic formation
as a means of foreign policy, forming alliances. In
this line, considerable attention was given to the
winning of allies and making of treaties during the
5th and especially 4th centuries. The duration of
the alliances were mainly specified, particularly in
the 5th century since alliances were founded on the
basis of allying for war. In other words, city-states,
aware of their weaknesses in face of each other,
formed alliances in case of a threat of war. In the
4th century, alliance treaties began to be specified in
duration as for ever, and the reason for this may be
the new understanding of inter-state relations that
alliances shall be based on peace rather than war
(Mosley, 2001: 321-322). Treaties were concluded
to establish both alliance and friendship. The
difference between alliance and friendship was that
while friendship required parties only to refrain
from harming each other, alliance required mutual
assistance in case of war.
The main source for ancient Greek diplomacy
has been the writings of Thucydides. It is widely
accepted that the first account of diplomacy at
this period was a diplomatic conference held in
432 BCE. As Nicolson quoted from Thucydides,
this conference was convened by Sparta to decide
with its allies on punishing Athens with war due
to its violation of treaties. While this conference
was convened by Sparta for its allies of the
Peloponnesian League against Athens, it is known
that an Athenian delegation was also allowed to
participate at and even to be involved in debates. In
fact, the Athenian delegation was there for another
specific mission but still was allowed to attend; and
this is a sign that by 5th century BCE Greeks were
aware of some diplomatic right and some kind
of immunity (Nicolson, 2001: 21-22). However,
different from the ancient Near East tradition,
being inviolate was not a general rule that applied
to all envoys; rather, it is known that in times of
war, diplomatic delegates were executed.
The Amphycthonyc League (league of neighbors),
formed in 6th century BCE, was mainly an
religious association and it was composed of
tribes not city-states. The amphictyonic league
maintained interstate assemblies with permanent
secretariats. Sparta formed alliances in the mid-6th
century BCE, and by 500 BCE it had created the
Peloponnesian League. The Peloponnesian League
was formed for decisions on questions of war,
peace, or alliance; and each member had one vote.
In the 5th century BCE, Athens led the Delian
League during the Greco-Persian Wars. The league
was formed to liberate eastern Greek cities from
Persian rule and as a defense to possible attacks
from Persia. The Delian League consisted of more
than 200 members.
Thucydides (460 BCE– 400 BCE)
The Greek historian Thucydides chronicled the
struggle between Sparta and Athens which was
reported to have lasted 30 years in his book
“History of the Peloponnesian War”. This book was
the first recorded political analysis of a nation’s war
policies. The scope and approach of the book was
and still is accepted as the origin of political realist
thought and Thucydides as the forefather of the
realist international relations account.

46
 2
Diplomacy

Another peculiarity of the ancient Greek The Roman World and The Use of
diplomacy was that they preferred oral messages to Diplomacy
written notes; therefore, there is not a large archive
Considering its longevity and organization,
of diplomatic correspondence of ancient Greece.
the Roman Empire contributed little to the
There were three kinds of representatives:
development of diplomacy. This may be explained
• angelos: a messenger used for brief and by their will to impose their policies on others
specific missions instead of negotiating. As Nicolson mentioned
• keryx: a herald “…[Romans] they sought to impose their will,
• proxenos: a resident consul but the proxenos rather than to negotiate on a basis of reciprocity”
were citizens of the city in which they (Nicolson, 2001:14). This, of course, does not
resided, not of the city-state that employed mean that diplomacy was unimportant for the
them. If a resident representative was Romans. Rather, it had an important place in
needed in another state, then a resident was governing their relations with rival states in Italy
given the title of proxenos by the state which and in managing their relations with foreign
he represented. In other words, the proxenos peoples after establishing their empire. However,
looked after the interests of a foreign state as it is widely accepted that the contribution of
while residing in the state of which he was a Romans to diplomacy is much more related to the
citizen. international law and is represented in the theory,
Envoys were selected from among the not the practice, of diplomacy.
prominent members of the state by the city
In the early years of the Roman Republic,
assembly and they were not necessarily qualified
procedures similar to those developed in Greece
persons. They were rather chosen for their political
were used. People were expressing their will
stance and for their association with the state which
through popular assemblies, and therefore were
they were negotiating with. Representatives were
arbiters of diplomatic issues such as war, peace
first expected to show their oratorical abilities. The
and treaties. Envoys from foreign powers never
number of members in a mission ranged from three
came before the assemblies of the people (Millar,
to ten men, and they were given brief instructions
1988: 348). However, as Rome came to power,
such as; ratifying treaties by oral oath, inquiring
the Senate took over the authority and gained a
about terms for peace, and solving a dispute in the
disproportionate influence, along with the right of
interest of the community (Wolpert, 2001: 76).
choosing and instructing envoys and of receiving
One of the distinctive features of Greek incoming embassies. After the empire was
diplomacy was its open and public nature. established, diplomacy turned to be part of regular
Decisions were taken and treaties were approved government policy which was in the hands of the
by public debate. This open nature of diplomacy emperor, despite the Senate remained.
deferred the development of an administrative
structure and record keeping. In the meantime,
since decisions were taken on public debate, envoys
were sent with strictly determined instructions;
therefore, .... had no flexibility. It is thus widely
accepted that diplomatic representatives in ancient
Greece were not negotiators, but skillful orators
for advocating the given policy. Another fact that
was limiting the effectiveness of the representative
was the wide suspicion that envoys were vulnerable
to bribery. Being open to such accusations was
really limiting for them. This suspicion was also
the reason for the prohibition on extending gifts
to envoys, which was a settled institution in the Figure 2.5
ancient Near East diplomacy.

47
2
The Historical Evolution of Diplomacy: First Practices
Around 600 BCE, Rome was one of many
small city-states in Latium, defending itself
from the threat of incursion of tribes. Its rise
to superiority resulted from its ability in using
warfare, a successful strategy for colonization and
diplomacy (Campbell, 2001: 4). In the course of
the Republic, many exchanges took place between
Rome and its Italian allies and between Rome
and various Greek states. They extended their
political influence not only through warfare but
also agreements, alliances and treaties. However,
it is also important to mention that Romans used
diplomacy brutally, as a method. They forced
people to conclude a treaty; and the conditions of
these treaties were determined on the basis of the
community’s power to resist Rome’s demands. In
this vein, the stronger the resistance was, the more
advantageous the conditions of the treaty were.
Through these treaties, the Roman Republic began
to establish its colonies; and by 264 BCE, more
than 150 treaties had been concluded. When they
completed the conquest of Italy, their diplomatic
dealings headed for centralized monarchies.
Romans inherited the diplomacy pattern from
Greece, but they developed a distinctive method to
suit their own needs. Envoys were chosen not for
their qualification, as in the ancient Greece. Since
envoys were given strict instructions prepared by
the Senate, there was no need to seek the skills for
negotiating. On their return, envoys were subject
to report to the Senate, and the final decision on
the issues which the envoy reported was given
by the Senate. Diplomatic representatives could
be impeached if they exceeded their authority.
However, envoys from Rome to the external world
were rarely initiated by the Senate; rather, they
were sent to places which sent their own envoy
to ask for assistance previously. The function of
diplomacy was simple and similar to those of other
ancient civilizations: making peace, regulating
trade and establishing a treaty. The right to be
inviolate was not only accorded to foreign envoys
but also extended to include their staff. Following
this right, an envoy who committed an offense in
Rome was sent back to his home country by guard
to be judged by his own authorities (Nicolson,
2001: 17-18).
In the imperial period, the most changing feature
of Roman diplomacy was the role that the emperor
played. The role of the emperor was no doubt
48
superior. Decisions were taken by the emperor and
the envoys were met by him in person. Under the
command of the emperors the main function of
diplomacy was to achieve agreements and treaties.
However, the terms were mostly dictated by Rome;
and there was no tone of reciprocity in treaties.
The difference in the diplomatic practice regarding
treaties was not limited to the reciprocity issue.
They also developed the practice of taking hostages
for the guarantee of the terms. This practice was
implemented unilaterally, the Romans never sent
hostages. Specifications of the hostages, such as
the number, the age, the duration, was determined
by the articles in the treaty. The hostages were
well treated unless the terms of the treaty were
violated; however, when violations occurred, the
hostages were arrested and began to be treated as
prisoners of war. Covert gathering of intelligence,
if not spying, was a major function of embassies in
all periods; and when they could not gather vital
information, this meant they in one aspect failed
in their mission. However, intelligence gathering
in terms of spying was mostly based on military
personnel; and diplomats were in a secondary
position in this regard.
Taking hostages as guarantors of a treaty persisted
long time in European politics. An interesting
example is the Treaty of Aix La- Chapelle of 1748,
which ended the War on Austrian Succession.
Following the terms of the treaty, two British peers,
Lord Suffolk and Lord Cathcart, were sent to Paris.
Diplomatic correspondence was used to set up
meetings and clarify discussed topics after a face
to face meeting. As mentioned earlier, the emperor
listened to the embassies in person, and responded
verbally at that time; however, the definitive reply
was embodied subsequently in a letter (Millar,
1988: 358). Romans usually did not sent envoys
for the letters, they handed the letter to the envoy
of the state with which the correspondence took
place. Unlike ancient Greece, an exchange of gifts
was accepted in Roman Empire, and accepting a
gift was opening the way for further contact, while
refusing was some kind of warning to the sending
state (Campbell, 2001: 13). Finally, it should be
mentioned that diplomatic processes were a tool

Diplomacy
not only for interactions with independent foreign
powers, but also for the internal communication
between all actors ranging from personal to
corporate to civic, provincial, and imperial (Eilers,
2009: 13). In fact, the most important channel for
contact was provided by diplomacy in an empire
controlling around 5 million square kilometers.
1
Do you think that covert
intelligence gathering and
bribery are favorable means
of diplomacy? Why?/Why
not?
MEDIEVAL DIPLOMACY
Masters of Diplomacy: The
Byzantine Empire
The Byzantine Empire originally was the eastern
part of the Roman Empire; and it was one of the
longest lasting political entities in history, from
330 CE until the fall of Constantinople in 1453.
One of the most important reasons for the empire’
slongevity was its use of diplomacy.
Figure 2.6 The Flag of the Byzantine Empire,
An Empire looking at East and West
Diplomacy was a necessity for the Byzantine
Empire because it had enemies on all of its borders
and there was always a threat of invasion while
2
for a certain time it had limited military power.
The military force of the Byzantine Empire never
exceeded the number of 140.000. While the threat
of invasion came from all quarters, e.g., from
Nomadic people to Germanic people, from Slavs
to Hungarians and Russians, its internal resources
were not enough to keep a military permanently in
order to give a military response to these threats.
Since the rulers of the empire were aware of their
military weakness, they first adapted the practices
of former civilizations and developed their own
way of diplomacy with their political and cultural
contributions. For example, they adapted the
practices of protocol and dynastic marriages from
the Near Eastern civilization, oration as a tool
for public speaking from Greece, and the divide
and rule tactics from the Roman Empire. In this
manner the diplomatic methods they exercised
were ranging from the, formation of alliances to
dynastic marriages, from exploiting the enemy’s
weaknesses, to deception and the use of religion.
Divide and Rule –Divide et Imperia
It was an important strategy for the Roman imperial
system. Romans divided the newly conquered
peoples into their component units such as tribes; or
city-states made separate alliances and treaties with
each to control and make them contribute to the
defense of the empire in common.
The Byzantine Empire adopted this method in its
external affairs with divide its enemies and embroil
them to each other.
The Byzantines employed a number of tactics,
both overt and covert to achieve their aims through
diplomacy rather than military force. It is therefore
common to label Byzantine diplomacy as “war by
other means” (Antonucci, 1993: 11). They were
unique in their method of involvement in internal
affairs of other countries. For this aim, the empire
initiated a new institution for diplomatic practice,
the Bureau of Barbarians.
The Bureau of Barbarians as a department of
government was responsible for foreign relations,
primarily with the barbarians living on the Balkan
Peninsula. Founded in 740, the Bureau is the first
sample of a permanent office dealing with foreign
affairs. The official in charge was the logothete,
49
2
The Historical Evolution of Diplomacy: First Practices

responsible for the imperial post, the supervision
of diplomatic officers, and the reception of foreign
envoys; and he eventually became the emperor’s
chief adviser on foreign affairs. The logothete was
also responsible for the internal security of the
empire until the 11th century. The Bureau sent
envoys on diplomatic missions to barbarian lands
in order to gather information from every possible
source. This was the main function of it. After the
envoy’s return to Byzantium, which took mostly
years, the information they had reported were
recorded and constituted the essential basis of their
knowledge on the weaknesses or strengths of their
enemies and/or allies. Although the Byzantium
Empire founded the first institution responsible
for foreign relations, the resident ambassador did
not emerge.
Impressing the foreign representative with
special treatment and amazing features of
Constantinople, a city inhabited with near half
million people, huge walls, well-armed soldiers,
and bazaars selling goods from all over the world
was another tool that was use by the empire.
It was almost inevitable to be impressed by the
outstanding beauty of the ceremonies at Hagia
Sophia, the imperial court, and even by the
entertaintments in the hippodrome. The throne
room in the palace where foreign representatives
were presented to the emperor was equipped with
lots of mechanical devices again to impress the
visitors. The throne of the emperor was mobile
and it arose while the visitors were bowing, so the
emperor displayed himself superior. There were
also mechanical lions which roared; and golden
birds sang in trees. All of them were somewhat
unimaginable thus very impressing at this period of
time (Hamilton, 1995: 21; Antonucci, 1993: 12).
Visitors were also given valuable gifts as a sign that
more gifts were forthcoming if his tribe allies with
the emperor. Diplomatic representatives were not
allowed to have a conversation with the emperor,
but they were treated well throughout their visit
unless conditions turn bad. When the visit of the
envoy was not satisfying in regard to the emperor’s
demands, they could be put in prison.
Aside from the valuable gifts extended to
diplomats, Byzantine emperors granted lands
to peoples with whom they wanted to be allied.
Forming alliances was a very important aspect
of Byzantium diplomacy and one of the methods
used for this aim involved marriages of Byzantium
princesses to foreign potentates. Byzantine princesses
were sent abroad in diplomatic alliances designed to
sustain the empires policy towards foreign powers.
They were even educated and prepared for this task;
and they often performed an ambassadorial function
which was part of the empire’s use of marriages as a
diplomatic tool (Herrin, 2013: 18).
Theodora Kantakouzen, the daughter of Emperor
John VI Kantakouzenos, got married with the
Ottoman ruler Orhan in 1346 to be in alliance
with the Ottomans and to prevent Ottoman
support to the opponents of the emperor in the
ongoing civil war in Byzantium.
The use of surrogates was also a method used
by the empire to benefit from the weaknesses of
their enemies. Emperors always had a list full of
pretenders for almost every foreign throne. If a
preparation of an attack of a foreign power was
perceived, the emperor could immediately release
a pretender to this country along with military
assistance and money. By causing an internal clash
in the enemy power, the emperor could achieve to
fend the danger (Antonucci, 1993: 13).
Religion was also a method of diplomacy in the
Byzantine Empire, and it conducted a missionary
operation. Byzantine priests were often spreading
faith in front of military authority. This led not only
to the spread of the religious doctrine but also to an
assumption that the Empire was the source of all
religious and political authority. The effect of this

50

Diplomacy
method can easily be seen in that the Byzantium
warfare occurred in the non-Christian East much
more than in the West (Hamilton, 1993: 22).
In fact, the main motive in the use of diplomacy
for the Byzantine Empire was to avoid war, and
all diplomatic practice was devoted to this aim.
Therefore, the empire used diplomacy as a means
of foreign policy continuously, employing more
emphasis on it than military means. Nonetheless,
it did not institutionalize it as the predecessor
civilizations. However, as Hamilton stated, later
developments in diplomacy were reactions to a
more complicated international environment until
the 14th century. In other words, the developmentof
permanent and institutional diplomacy was due to
obligations caused by the inter-state system that
emerged. It is also important to mention that the
more advanced diplomatic practices of Italian city-
states were derived, though indirectly, from the
Byzantine Empire. It is well known and commonly
accepted that Byzantine diplomatic practice was
passed on to the West through Venetians, who
had long and intimate relation with the empire
(Nicolson, 2001: 27).
Diplomacy in the Early Islamic
World
Diplomacy in the Islamic world began with the
establishment of the first Islamic state in 622; and
it was not founded through military means but
by a social contract, the Medina Charter. (Khan,
2006). The Charter was an agreement settling the
inter-tribal conflict between Muslims, Jews and
pagans; and it constituted a free state of a pluralistic
community. It is a constitution which provided
for dispute resolution, a tax system, rights and
responsibilities to both Muslims and non-Muslims.
During this time of the Prophet, diplomatic
representatives were received, and they were
accepted through ceremonies. Gift exchanging
was a common conduct of diplomacy as in the
previous civilizations and cultures. In 631, the
Prophet received a delegation of Christians,
including Christian scholars, from Najran at
Medina. Their stay took three days and they were
engaged in discussions on Islam and Christianity.
The delegation was allowed to use the Mosque
for prayers, but since they refused to convert to
Islam, they accepted to pay a tribute, consisting of
2
garments, horses and camels in case of war. Between
630 and 631, many delegations came to Medina;
and therefore, this period is named as the Year of
Delegation. Most of them were representatives of
Arab tribes coming to declare their acceptance of
Islam; however, as in the Najran case, there were
also Christians without an intention to accept the
religion, but to conclude an agreement.
The case of Najran delegates was common in
Islamic diplomacy; in other words, diplomatic
representatives enjoyed immunity in the Islamic
State. They were free to practice their religion as
it was with the Najran delegates. Exemption from
duties for the personnel properties of a diplomatic
delegation were given on a reciprocal basis (Salmi,
1998: 134). While receiving delegations, the Prophet
also sent diplomatic delegations to Byzantium,
Persia, Abyssinia and Egypt to invite them to Islam.
The Letter of the Prophet Muhammed to the
Byzantine Emperor Heraklius.
The function of diplomats was to communicate
with other states, to conclude an agreement or
alliance which was decided previously, to arrange
the exchange of prisoners and the truce, and to
announce war. Most certainly, another function
of envoys was to gather information about the
weaknesses and/or strengths of the host country.
The function of diplomacy in these early years
was at the most basic level since the strength of
the state in the absence of at least an equal power
did not raise the need to a more complex function
51
2
The Historical Evolution of Diplomacy: First Practices
for diplomacy. An equilibrium was reached in the
inter-state level only after the establishment of the
Abbasid Dynasty in Baghdad (750-1258); and it
required more complex functions and more friendly
relationships. This situation, in the meantime,
added more importance to the role of diplomats
in the Islamic world. However, diplomacy was still
a temporary necessity and would remain as such
for a long time, even after permanent diplomacy
began in the European world.
In theory, for Islam the world was divided
into two abodes: dar-el Islam and dar-el harb.
The abode of Islam consists of countries where
the rules of Islam are implemented and Islamic
rituals are performed. People of that abode are
Muslims and non-Muslims who live in the Islamic
territory according to a covenant. The abode
of war comprises countries where the religious
and political rules of Islam are consequently not
implemented; therefore, a state of war was always
prevalent in these countries. (Wahbeh al-Zuhili,
2005: 278). In this perspective, being not in peace
with the dar-el harb does not mean it is imperative
to fight in military terms; rather, the state of war
could be suspended for very long periods based on
a treaty. In other words, being non-Muslim is not
sufficient for waging a war; rather, aggression against
Muslims, assistance for the victims of injustice and
self-defense are legitimate causes for war. Even
against the enemies before the declaration of war,
the enemy was given options to choose between
Islam for peace, peace through treaty or finally
war (Wahbeh al-Zuhili, 2005: 280). The door for
communication and contact was open; and during
52
periods of suspended war, safe passage was granted
for envoys. At this point, the aman was important
for safe passage and conduct. The Aman entitled
the holder to enter Islamic lands and to obtain the
protection of the authorities for his person, his
household and his property (Hamilton, 1995: 27).
Diplomatic contact between Islamic or Arab,
Byzantine and also Latin rulers were frequent in the
Middle Ages. The motives for diplomatic practice
were similar to other ages and civilizations: political
concern regarding peace and war, economic or
commercial motives and definitely information
gathering. Emissaries played the most important
role in this vein; and it can be said that diplomatic
envoys were great travelers in the Middle Ages.
As Drocourt stated, they usually spent more time
travelling than negotiating because of the distance
between the Arab region and Constantinople or the
whole Western part of Christendom. (Drocourt,
2012: 92).
2
We have seen that religion
became a basis for diplomacy
In the Medieval World. In
line with this argument, is it
possible to conclude that the
only motive for diplomacy
in the Medieval World was
religion? Explain why you
agree/don’t agree with this
argument.
 2
Diplomacy

LO 1 Grasp the birth of the first practices of

diplomacy.

The history of diplomacy is as old as the human societies. As the first intercourse began between different
tribes, messengers began travelling and delivering messages, a process which is accepted as the first
diplomatic practice. As primitive societies developed and civilizations emerged, diplomacy also became
more institutionalized and organized. The first state-like polities established in Mesopotamia were the
initiators of the tradition of diplomacy that evolved and transformed and formed the basis of diplomacy as
we know today. Many elements and practices of diplomacy can be traced back to those times.

Summary
The first states system appeared in Mesopotamia in the 4th century and was dominated by Sumerians,
Babylonian, Akadian and Assyrians. The significance of this period lied in the invention of writing by
the Sumerians which has also changed the shape of diplomacy. Letters began to be exchanged between
states with the invention of writing. The remarkable point about these letters that they were not written
by the kings but by their officials, hence the representatives of the states like the modern diplomats. The
lingua franca of diplomacy inevitably became Sumerian in this period, which was related to the political
domination of the Sumerian state in the region. The conquest of Sumer by the Akkadian Kingdom ended
this domination and the diplomatic language also came to be dominated by Arcadian. Brotherhood, the
sending and greeting of messengers, exchanging gifts, dynastic marriages and mutual assistance in case of
conflict were the main diplomatic themes of this period. These themes were developed by the Babylonian
King Hammurabi, who used diplomacy especially in terms of forming alliances. Other contemporary
leaders adopted the methods developed by Hammurabi in a way to achive their goals. After Hammurabi,
the domination of Mesopotamia ended and the focus of diplomacy shifted to the Near East. There is a
considerable number of diplomatic documents belonging to this period and they are brought together in
two main archives: Mari Archives and Amarna Letters. Mari archives present clear evidence of the existence
of arbitration and mediation, diplomatic codes of conduct, the exchange of envoys and the description of
their missions. Likewise, Amarna letters provide information about the conduct of diplomacy in terms of
Strategic-military cooperation, treaty negotiations, dynastic marriages, regulation of trade, strengthening
friendly relations and negotiating alliances.
Another early practice of diplomacy is to be found in China. The first era of Chinese diplomacy, called
the Warring States Era, lasted between 656 and 221 when diplomacy was based on leagues, missions
and an organized system of correspondence between many warring states; and when it also included
manoeuvres, secrecy and bribery. The second era of Chinese diplomacy, on the other hand, was shaped
by trade relations, especially with the distant world. This led to an interaction of diplomatic traditions of
different civilizations and their transformation as they mutually influenced each other.
Ancient India provides another early diplomatic tradition which includes elements that are still being used
in modern diplomacy in one way or other. Duties of diplomats were clearly defined as declaring war and
peace, forging alliances and gathering intelligence overtly, and also spying. Their privileges and immunities
were also defined.
Another civilization that diplomacy can be traced back to is Ancient Greece. Diplomacy in Ancient
Greece mainly remained within the Greek world, namely resulting in the relations between the Greek city-
states. The dominant character of diplomacy was alliances that evolved into being permanent. Another
characteristic of the Greek diplomacy was that the diplomatic messages were not delivered as written but
oral messages instead, which is the main reason for the absence of diplomatic documents of the period.
The main novelty of diplomacy in Ancient Greece, however, was the open and public nature of it.
The last stop of early diplomacy would be the Roman Empire, which inherited the diplomatic tradition of
Ancient Greece. For Rome, diplomacy was an instrument of increasing its influence through agreements,
alliances and treaties. But using coercive means to reach these agreements, alliances and treaties, in a way
initiated what is today called coercive diplomacy. The main actor of Roman diplomacy was the emperor
himself, surpassing the envoys and playing a determinant role resembling that of the political leaders that
withhold diplomacy in modern times.

53
2
The Historical Evolution of Diplomacy: First Practices

Understand the evolution of these practices

LO 2 throughout centuries and different
civilizations

The most established form of diplomacy in the pre-modern era was in the Byzantine Empire, for which
diplomacy was a necessity as it was surrounded by enemies on all its borders. Byzantine Empire were
influenced by earlier diplomatic practices; and they adopted and synthesized them in a holistic way.
Consequently, this established a governmental body responsible for foreign relations under the name of
Bureau of Barbarians, which can be considered as the first form of ministry of foreign affairs. Its head,
who can be compared to a minister of foreign affairs, was the chief advisor of the emperor on foreign
Summary

affairs and was responsible for the imperial post, the supervision of diplomatic officers, and the reception
of foreign envoys. The responsibility of the envoys was to gather information from every possible source
about the place that they had been sent to. But these envoys were not residents as is the case in modern
diplomacy. Still, through their long relations, the Byzantine practice influenced the Italian city-states,
which then established the first form of modern permanent diplomacy.

54
 2
Diplomacy

1 The first known diplomatic letter was sent by 6 Which term was used in Ancient Greece to
______. describe a resident consul?
a. King of Ebla to King of Hamazi a. Angelos
b. King of Sumer to King of Akkadian b. Keryx
c. King of Babylon to King of Egypt c. Proxenos
d. King of Hattie to King of Mitanni d. Polites

Test Yourself
e. King of Assyria to the King of Babylon e. Metoikos

7 Which of the following is used first in the

2 Which of the following is not a member of
the “Great Powers” of the late bronze age in the Ro­man Empire as a method to gua­rantee the term
Near East? of treaties?

a. Egypt a. Signing
b. Hattie b. Taking an oath
c. Ebla c. Dynastic Marriages
d. Mitanni d. Taking hostages
e. Babylonia e. Touching the throat

8 Which of the following is not one of the dip-

3 Kadesh Treaty was signed between: lomatic practices that Byzantine Empire borrowed
a. Assyria and Mitanni from earlier civilizations?
b. Ebla and Hamazi a. Practices of protocol
c. Egypt and Babylonia b. Dynastic marriages
d. Hittite and Egypt c. Oration as a tool for public speaking
e. Babylonia and Assyria d. Divide and rule
e. Use of religion
4 The writer of The Art of War is; ______.
a. Kautilya 9 What was the name of the government de-
b. Sun-Tzu partment responsible for foreign relations in the
Byzantine Empire?
c. Homer
d. Amarna a. Ministry of foreign affairs
e. Magadha b. Dragoman
c. Logothete
5 According to Kautilya, which of the following
d. The Bureau of Barbarians
is not a form of foreign policy? e. Translation Office

a. Peace
b. War 10 Which period in early Islamic conduct was
named as the Year of Delegation?
c. Seeking shelter
d. Alliance a. 622-623
e. Double-dealing b. 635-636
c. 630-631
d. 634-635
e. 644-645

55
2
The Historical Evolution of Diplomacy: First Practices

If your answer is not correct, review the

1. a 6. c If your answer is not correct, review the
section on “The Beginning of Institutional
section on “Ancient Greece”
Diplomatic Practice: Mesopotamian
Diplomacy”
Answer Key for “Test Yourself”

If your answer is not correct, review the If your answer is not correct, review the
2. c section on “The Beginning of Institutional 7. d
section on “The Roman World and Uses of
Diplomatic Practice: Mesopotamian Diplomacy”
Diplomacy”

If your answer is not correct, review the

3. d 8. e If your answer is not correct, review the
section on “The Beginning of Institutional
section on “Masters of Diplomacy”
Diplomatic Practice: Mesopotamian
Diplomacy”

4. b If your answer is not correct, review the 9. d If your answer is not correct, review the
section on “Ancient China” section on “Masters of Diplomacy”

If your answer is not correct, review the

5. b If your answer is not correct, review the 10. c
section on “Diplomacy in the Early Islamic
section on “Ancient India”
World”

56
 2
Diplomacy

Do you think that covert practices as covert intelligence gathering is a

favorable means of diplomacy? Why?/Why not?

Throughout our analysis of the historical evolution of diplomacy until the

end of the Middle Ages, we could not find much justification to defend open

Suggested Answers for “Your turn”

diplomacy or, in other words, to accuse secret diplomacy as a false tool to be used
in diplomatic practice. While the only sample which was based on open/public
diplomacy was ancient Greece, we saw that the openness was later interpreted
critically as the weakness of the ancient Greek diplomacy. Remember that Greek
city states were disdainful of secrecy and suspicious of their own diplomats; and
therefore, negotiations were conducted orally and publicly. Even, exchanging gifts
was forbidden. Apart from the Greek case, during the ancient and medieval times,
secrecy in diplomacy, and in particular all secret techniques including information
gathering, were approved by nearly all societies.
Following the Greeks, Rome’s practice of diplomacy, as we have discussed, was
much more based on imposing their will on others; and their contribution to
diplomacy was rather mere. After all, during the decline of the Roman Empire,
bribery and intelligence became frequent tools for surviving. The successor of the
Roman Empire Byzantium was too weak in military terms to back its survival while
being threatened by invasion from virtually all quarters. Therefore, the Byzantium
Empire put its hope on survival in strategies like playing off its enemies against
each other. This strategy was implemented through a number of methods such as
bribery, deceit, fraud, intelligence gathering, disinformation, and suspicion along
with ceremonial proceedings to amaze and confuse foreign emissaries. Gathering
and manipulating information on allies and enemies was, therefore, one of the main
diplomatic practices for Byzantium.
During the Renaissance, secrecy, suspicion and duplicity became established
diplomatic techniques. Secrecy became an integral part of diplomacy, which would
your turn 1 characterize the modern international system until the 20th century. While in 1648
the modern international system was established with the signing of the Westphalia
Treaty, the Westphalian system became immediately strategic and chess-like, which
raised the importance of secrecy in diplomatic practices.
While we see idealistic accounts aiming to change the role of diplomacy in the
following centuries, the practice of diplomacy continued to be secret, secret treaties,
agreements and negotiation became more deeply embedded in the international
relations system, and as the core part of secret diplomacy, no doubt covert activities
were also embedded in it.
In fact, it wasn’t until the First World War that secret diplomacy, along with its all
practices, were understood as invalid. This was because people had been aware that
one of the main reasons of the Great War lied behind the use of secret diplomacy.
This conclusion was definitely true; and in practice, one of the main motives for the
new international order was to forbid secret diplomacy or to make “open diplomacy”
a principle or norm of international affairs.
However, it is well known that secret diplomacy or secret methods like information
gathering continued to be used through the 20th century, especially under the
conditions of the Cold War, although secret diplomacy was not approved. Today
we are still discussing the effect of the digitalization of information on covert or
illegal information gathering. As a result, we can not claim that covert methods of
information gathering in diplomacy vanished in international affairs; however, we
can insist on its abolishment due to the immorality of it.
For further information see Bjola, Corneliu and Murray Stuart (2016). Secret
Diplomacy: Concepts, Context, and Cases, (London&New York: Routledge
Diplomacy Studies). Particularly Murray, Stuart (2016), “Secret versus Open
Diplomacy Across Ages”, 13-29.

57
2
The Historical Evolution of Diplomacy: First Practices

We have seen that religion became a basis for diplomacy In the

Medieval World. In line with this argument, is it possible to conclude
that the only motive for diplomacy in the Medieval World was religion?
Explain why you agree/don’t agree with this argument.
Suggested Answers for “Your turn”

Beginning from the Byzantium Empire, we saw that religion was one of the
means of the practice of diplomacy. Spreading the Christian faith and converting
other peoples to Christianity was used as a tool of forming alliances in the
Medieval World. But is it possible to claim that the main motive for diplomacy
in using religion was to convert other peoples to Christianity, or was it based
actually on a political/strategic choice?
There is little evidence that religion was a real motive for diplomacy other than
being a strategic tool of it. Because when faced with other Christian peoples
who were against the empire, Byzantium’s foreign policy was prompt to turn to
its Roman origin and differentiate itself from the enemy Christians. When faced
with non-Christians, Christianity served as a uniting instrument. However,
when the enemy was belonged to Christendom, then they were identified as
Barbarians. This little passage shows us clearly that the main motive was always
political and strategic while religion was used to serve to these politico-strategic
aims.
When it comes to Islam, there is also not much evidence to reach a different
conclusion. Although in theory, Islam divided the world into two categories as
dar-al Islam and dar-al harb, we know that in practice Muslims formed alliances
with the dar-al harb or non-Muslim territories and did not go into war without
your turn 2 strategic calculations.
Examining the causes of Crusades, which took place between 1096 and 1291
and which were presented as holy wars of Christians on Muslims, can provide
us with an answer.
The Crusades were a series of wars between Christians and Muslims, which
eventually propelled the status of European Christians and turned them
into major players in struggle for land in the Mediterranean and the Middle
East. By the end of the 11th century, Western Europe was still behind other
Mediterranean civilizations, such as that of the Byzantine Empire and the
Islamic Empire, while it was emerging as a power in its own right. When the
Seljuk Turks took control of the Holy Lands, the emperor of the Byzantine
Empire asked the Pope for help in regaining these lands for Christians. Apart
from assisting the Byzantine Empire to regain the Holy Lands, one motive for
the Pope in assisting was to give the Roman Catholic Church power over the
church of the Byzantine Empire. We see also that the fourth crusade called on
by the Pope was against Constantinople to guarantee the new emperor’s decision
on submitting the Byzantium Church to Rome by removing the resistance in
Byzantium. The Crusades ultimately resulted in defeat for Europeans; however,
the Roman Catholic Church experienced an increase in wealth, and the power
of the Pope was raised with the end of the Crusades.
This very brief survey provides an insight for the answer we are searching for
although not complete. It can be said, as a conclusion, that religion was never
the single motive for peace or war, hence of diplomacy; and the underlying
motive was always related to political and strategic interests.

58

Diplomacy
References
Adcock, F. E. (1948). “The Development Of Ancient
Greek Diplomacy”, Perseé, 17:1, 1-12.
Ager, Shelia (2009). “Roman Perspectives on Greek
Diplomacy”,in Diplomats and Diplomacy
in the Roman World, (ed.) Claude Eliers,
(Leiden&Boston: Brill), 15-43.
Antonucci, Michael (1993). “War by Other Means:
The Legacy of Byzantium”, History Today, 43:2,
11-13.
Aruz, Joan, Benzel, Kim and Evans, Jean M. (2008).
Beyond Babylon: Art, Trade and Diplomacy in the
Second Millennium, (New York: The Metropolitan
Museum of Art).
Bielenstein, Hans (2005). Diplomacy and Trade in
Ancient Chinese World, 589-1276 BCE, (Brill).
Bjola, Cornelu and Murray Stuart (2016). Secret
Diplomacy: Concepts, Context, and Cases,
(London&New York: Routledge Diplomacy
Studies).
Boesche, Roger (2003). “Kautilya’s Arthasastra on War
and Diplomacy in Ancient India”, The Journal of
Military History, 67:11, 9-37.
Brennan, Corey T. (2009). “Embassies Gone Wrong:
Roman Diplomacy in the Constantinian Excerpta
de”, Diplomats in and Diplomacy in the Roman
World, (ed.) Claude Eliers, (Leiden&Boston:
Brill), 171-191.
Burton, Paul J. (2011). Friendship and Empire:
Roman Diplomacy and Imperialism in the Middle
Republic,(Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press).
Campbell, Brian (2001). “Diplomacy in the Roman
World (500-235 AD), Diplomacy and Statecraft,
12:1, 1-22.
Cohen, Raymond and Westbrook, Raymond (2000).
Amarna Diplomacy: The Beginnings of International
Relations. (Baltimore&London: John Hopkins
University Press).
Cohen, Raymond (2001). “The Great Tradition: The
Spread of Diplomacy in The Ancient World”,
Diplomacy and Statecraft, 12:1, 23-38.
Drocourt, Nicolas (2012). “Passing on Political
Information Between Major Powers: The Key
Role of Ambassadors between Byzantium and
some of its Neighbors”, Al-Masaq: Islam and the
Medieval Mediterranean, 24:1, 91-112.
2
Eliers, Claude, (2009). “Introduction”, in Diplomats
and Diplomacy in the Roman World, (ed.) Claude
Eliers, (Leiden&Boston: Brill), 1-13.
El-Wakıl , Ahmed (2016). “The Prophet’s Treaty
With The Christians Of Najran: An Analytical
Study To Determine The Authenticity Of The
Covenants”, Journal Of Islamic Studies, 27:3,
273–354.-Feldman, Merian (2006). Diplomacy by
Design: Luxury Arts and an International Style in
the Ancient Near East: 1400-1200 BCE, (Chicago:
University of Chicago Press).
Hamilton, Keith and Langhorne, Richard (1995). The
Practice of Diplomacy: Its Evolution, Theory and
Practice, (London: Routledge).
Herrin, Judith (2013). Unrivalled Influence: Women
and Empire in Byzantium, (Princeton: Princeton
University Press).
Honggeng, Guo (2004). “The Assyrian Intelligence
Activities During the Assyrian Empire”, Journal of
Academic Assyrian Studies, 18:2, 59-71.
Hui, Victoria Tin-bor (2010). War and State Formation
in Ancient China and Early Modern Europe.
(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).
Khan, Ali (2006). “The Medina Constitution”,
Understanding Islamic Law.
Kumar, Madhurendra (2014). “Relevance of Ancient
Indian Diplomacy in Contemporary Era of
Globalization”, International Political Studies
Association.
Lafont, Bertrand (2001). “International Relations in
The Ancient Near East: The Birth of a Complete
Diplomatic System”, Diplomacy and Statecraft,
12:1, 39-60.
Mathur, D. B. (1968). “Some Reflections on Ancient
Indian Diplomacy”, The Indian Journal of Political
Science, 23:14, 398-405.
Millar, Fergus (1988). “Governence and Diplomacy
in the Roman Empire During the First Three
Centuries, The International History Review, 10: 3,
345-377.
Mosley, D. J. (1971). “Diplomacy and Disunion in
Ancient Greece”, Phoenix, 25:4, 319-330.
Neumann, Iver B. (2006). “Sublime Diplomacy:
Byzantine, Early Modern, Contemporary”,
Millenium: Journal of International Relations,
34:3, 865-888.
59
2
The Historical Evolution of Diplomacy: First Practices

Nicolson, Harold (2011). The Evolution of Diplomatic

Method, (University of Leicester).
Oppenheim, Leo A. (1967). Letters from Mesopotamia,
(Chicago&London: University of Chicgo Press).
Podany, Amarna H. (2010). Brotherhood of Kings:
How International Relations Shaped the Ancient
Near East, (Oxford: Oxford University Press).
Roberts, Sir Ivor (2009). Satow’s Diplomatic Practice,
(Oxford: Oxford University Press).
Salmi, Ralph (1998). Islam and Conflict Resolution:
Theory and Practice (Maryland: American
University Press).
Szykman, Simon (1995). “The Art of Diplomacy in
the Art of War”, The Diplomatic Pouch, Fall.
Wahbeh al-Zuhili, Sheikh (2005). “Islam and
International Law”, International Review of the
Red Cross, 87: 858, 269-283.
Wolpert, Andrew (2001). “The Genealogy of
Diplomacy in Classical Greece”, Diplomacy and
Statecraft, 12:1, 71-88.

60
 Historical Evolution of Diplomacy:
Chapter 3 Transition to Permanent Diplomacy
After completing this chapter you will be able to;

1 2
Examine the emergence of certain diplomatic
Learning Outcomes

Track the roots of modern diplomacy back

to the period starting from ancient times to practices such as resident embassies among
renaissance. Italian city states.

3 Note the main aspects of diplomatic practices

between Peace of Westphalia and Vienna
Congress 4 Examine the emergence of diplomatic
missions and specific ministries of foreign
affairs.

5
Categorizing the differing features of the
contemporary diplomacy in late 20th and 21st
centuries.

Chapter Outline Key Terms

Introduction
Old Diplomacy
Diplomacy in the ‘Old World’: From Ancient
Renaissance Diplomacy
Times to Renaissance
Contemporary Diplomacy
Italian City States and Renaissance Diplomacy
Diplomatic Practices
Old Diplomacy
Interwar Period
Transition to Permanent Diplomacy
Ministries of Foreign Affairs
New Diplomacy
Diplomatic Immunity,
Permanent Diplomacy

62

Diplomacy
INTRODUCTION
The argument that the international politics
is built upon the power interactions among state
actors is a well-established one. Mainstream
theories of International Relations (IR) such as
Realist and Liberal schools agree on that states
usually pursue policies to consolidate their power
status in world politics (Waltz, 1979; Keohane,
1984). How power is possessed is rather a more
controversial debate though. While the realist
school mainly focuses on use of force and
dominance, liberal and constructivist approaches
emphasize the significance of various interactions
among states in the constitution of power. These
interactions include negotiations, agreements,
protesting, even sometimes threatening. Edmund
Burke, an Irish journalist and later British member
of the Parliament, called the sum of these practices
diplomacy in the Annual Register for 1787 (Scott,
2011) and mentioned the term later in his address
to the House of Commons in 1796 (Berridge, 2010:
1). Yet, the roots of diplomatic practices date much
further back. Today’s contemporary diplomacy
has gone through a long evolution process to
take its current shape. This chapter examines the
historical evolution of diplomacy and emergence
of its established customs and institutions. Here,
we examine this evolution under five main terms.
First, we focus on the diplomatic practices in the
‘Old World’, encompassing the eras from ancient
times to Renaissance. Second, the Renaissance
term and Italian city states’ diplomatic interactions
are analyzed. Third, Westphalia Peace, emergence
of centralized national states and their implications
on the diplomatic practices are elaborated under
the name of ‘Old Diplomacy’. In the fourth term,
it is analyzed how diplomacy as a profession
gained a more institutionalized structure mainly
in the late 18th and early 19th centuries. Finally,
we categorize contemporary diplomacy as ‘New
Diplomacy, a term which refers to the diplomatic
practices that have been shaped within chaotic
political environment of interwar period, bipolar
structure of post-Second World War and globalized
post-Cold War terms.
3
Interwar period
In diplomatic history, the term “Interwar
Period” refers to the specific period
between 1918 and 1939. The early years of
interwar period was relatively peaceful and
optimistic, yet especially the term after 1929
was characterized by insecurity. The Great
Depression, Italian invasion of Abyssinia,
Japanese invasion of Manchuria, German
invasion of Czechoslovakia and inefficient
structure of the League of Nations to react
these crises were the major themes in the
diplomatic agenda of this term.
TYPES OF INTERNATIONAL SYSTEM
Unipolar system: This is a type of
international system in which one hegemon
significantly dominates the other actors
within the system. A typical example of such
an international system is the period of early
1990s. The United States remained as the
only superpower after the dissolution of the
Soviet Union and dominated the international
system.
Bipolar system: In bipolar international
system, there are two major powers that are
significantly superior to other actors in terms
of distribution of power. A perfect example of
such an international system is the Cold War
term in which the United States and Soviet
Union appeared as the two superpowers.
Multipolar system: Multipolarity refers to
an international system with at least three great
powers of which are similarly distributed. The
period before the Great War (First World War)
can be considered a multipolar international
system. It can be argued that the military
capacities were almost equally distributed
among at least four actors, namely Britain,
France, Germany and the United States before
the Great War.
63
3
Historical Evolution of Diplomacy: Transition to Permanent Diplomacy
DIPLOMACY IN THE ‘OLD
WORLD’: FROM ANCIENT
TIMES TO RENAISSANCE
Understanding the circumstances that paved
the way for transition to permanent democracy
requires a quick look at the context of the diplomatic
practices before the emergence of permanent
diplomatic institutions. Although contemporary
diplomacy is considered as a practice of centralized
modern state units, interactions resembling to
today’s diplomatic practices had existed between
ancient states and state-like formations. The “Old
World” did have states, state-like entities and more
localized authorities which interact with each other.
In this sense, treaties, negotiations, correspondence
between authorities were registered by historians
(even archeologists) and those registries have been
subject to diplomatic history research. Today we
have enough evidence to propose a projection for
what ancient form of diplomacy was like. On that
sense, two main characteristics of the diplomacy in
ancient times can be noted. First, ancient diplomatic
practices were not operated through permanent
institutions. Second, the diplomatic interactions
were not constant and institutionalized; rather they
were characterized by intermittency (Hamilton
and Langhorne, 2011: 7).
The term “Old World” here refers to a period
of time starting from ancient world to emergence
of Renaissance especially in Italian peninsula.
The political authorities of the “Old World”
were far from being as organized as modern state
structures. The main difference between ancient
states and modern state structures was lying in the
capacity of centralization. The ancient states in
the “Old World” were mainly constituted of some
local authorities which control a piece of land
militarily and economically. These local authorities
were brought together under more general state
structures borders of which reach out broader
territories. Although they resemble medieval
empires in terms of their organization, these
states lacked the permanent institutions, mainly
built upon decentralized structures, and their
borders were not very well-defined. What we call
“ancient diplomacy” today took place both within
and among these states of the “Old World”. The
diplomatic practices within an ancient state took
place among the local authorities such as feudal
64
lords, chieftains and tribal leaders. These practices
vary from mutual visits to trade and security related
agreements between them. Although we consider
these practices as the forerunners of diplomacy
in the ancient world, it should be noted that
they were not operated through institutionalized
structures. For instance, one of the main principles
of modern diplomacy, pacta sunt servanda, did
not exist as an ordering principle of the interaction
among these local authorities. Therefore, the
agreement between two local authorities were
being interrupted or even abolished when one of
the local rulers passed away or the ruling family
changed. The interaction among broader state
structures were, on the other hand, built upon
somehow more organized structures. An agreement
between two states of the “Old World” could easily
last and be honored for several centuries. It was
also a common practice to build monuments and
monolith tablets to represent agreements and pacts
between the great states of ancient world. Not only
agreements, but also important visits exchanged
between the rulers were immortalized through
such monumental structures. Today, many ancient
cities in Anatolia, for instance, still have the ruins
of monuments that represent the outcome of such
diplomatic exchanges.
Pacta sunt servanda
Pacta sunt servanda is a legal term in
Latin, which refers to the continuity of
agreements between parties and bindingness
of the clauses for both parties regardless
of a change of a government or ruler. It is
one of the ordering principles of modern
international law and diplomacy. For more
information, see Wehberg, (1959).
As noted above, the main subject matters of
the ancient diplomacy were about the general
principles of trade and ascendancy talks. For
the former, the security of the trade paths were
guaranteed through such diplomatic talks
among the city states and local authorities. Such
interaction among the city states set the principles
of trade and assured the security of merchant
caravans. Ascendancy related diplomatic practices
focused mainly on the political unity formed by

Diplomacy
those city states. Within the political context of the
“Old World”, the diplomatic interactions related
with ascendancy were shaped mainly on the basis
of material capacities. Materially stronger party
claimed the ascendancy over smaller city state and
state-like authorities. Broader state structures, then,
were being established as result of such diplomatic
interactions in which stronger party imposed its
clauses to the smaller authorities. The diplomacy,
in this sense, was used as a tool of expanding
borders by the stronger parties. Smaller powers, on
the other hand, saw diplomacy as an instrument of
survival by avoiding violent conflict with the great
powers of the time (Black, 2010: 22).
It should be, at this point, noted that transition
to permanent diplomatic institutions, emergence
of professional diplomats and institutionalization
of the current diplomatic practices mainly
originate from the European interstate customs
and precedents. Yet, it would be flawed to
neglect the fact that European practices were also
influenced from the interactions with states and
suzerainties surrounding Europe. For instance,
the diplomatic records found carved on clay
tablets in the Near East and Mesopotamia reveal
that the alliance systems were in fact established
among pre-modern Mesopotamian civilizations
through the concept of “brotherhood”. (Black,
2010: 19). The reference to a counterpart ruler
as brother manifested an alliance resembling to
modern military and political alliances between
modern state structures, which is considered as one
of the main signals of the emergence of modern
diplomacy. Another example can be given from
the ‘faith-based diplomacy’ (Cox and Philpott
2003) between civilizations and political units of
the Near East. A diplomatic letter (usually sent as
carved upon clay tablets) for religious invitation
of another political unit to a religion signalized
an alliance that would last longer, which could
be considered as the forerunner of European type
collective security systems. Such alliances that were
established through fait-based diplomacy did last
much longer compared to alliances provided by a
positive relationship between two rulers.
Ancient Greek civilization can be considered as
the first political context that left certain reliable
and copious evidence for a diplomatic system that
emerged among equal counterparts and inherited
by the later European political units as the custom
3
of diplomacy (Hamilton and Langhorne, 2011:
14). Collectivity of small city-states, connectivity
of them through trade paths and sea routes and the
custom about sharing the internal waters (such as
rivers) provided a diplomatic rules and norms quite
similar to modern practices of diplomacy. Likewise,
the collectivity of suzerainties under the umbrella
of Roman Empire should be noted as a major
element that constituted the historical background
of the permanent diplomacy. The extent and
longevity of the Roman Empire contributed
significantly especially to the legal setting of the
modern diplomacy. The main contribution of the
Roman Empire was its legal efforts to determine
what is internal and what is external (Hamilton
and Langhorne, 2011: 17). In other words, the
concept of border was mainly institutionalized and
legalized through the efforts of Roman Empire
system to determine the territories of its equal
suzerainties.
The medieval world also prepared the political
context for transition to permanent diplomacy.
Drastic fragmentation of the Europe especially
after the fall of Rome accelerated conflicts as quite
well as diplomatic interactions among the political
entities in Europe. When we consider that modern
diplomacy’s major achievement is to create a form
of interstates society in which a sense of collective
identity is built, the medieval Europe can be noted
as a political context in which such a collective
identity burgeoned. “There were wars, doctrinal
disputes, the Great Schism, the division between
Pope and Emperor, eruptions of class war, but
through it all, there continued to be ‘a belief in the
actual unity of Christendom, however variously
felt and expressed’ which was a fundamental
condition of all medieval political thought and
activity.” (Hamilton and Langhorne, 2011: 32;
Mattingly, 1955: 18-19). Respublica Christiana
was how this collective identity called, although
it never turned into an acquired state structure.
Within the context of Respublica Christiana,
diplomatic contacts between the political entities
were quite structured, organized and also were
built upon a common custom that were adopted
from the past experiences mentioned above. Most
significant and novel concept of medieval Europe
is the term nuncius. A nuncius is the person in
charge who is appointed by the ruler as the voice
of the principal in another political entity. In other
65
3
Historical Evolution of Diplomacy: Transition to Permanent Diplomacy
words, a nuncius is an early example of resident
ambassadors in modern diplomacy. In fact, the
nuncius was considered as a living letter of the
principal written for a counterpart (Hamilton and
Langhorne, 2011: 34.) All in all, the signals of the
resident ambassadors, considered as an element of
modern permanent diplomacy, were first detected
in the diplomatic practices of medieval world in the
form of a nuncius. The clear signals of transition to
permanent institutions and professional diplomats
were, however, seen mainly in the Italian city states
during the Renaissance.
Figure 3.1 Íñigo López de Mendoza y Zúñiga, Mendoza
was a Castilian clergyman and diplomat in the service
of Emperor Charles V (ruler of both the Spanish Empire
and the Holy Roman Empire) who appointed him
ambassador to the English court in 1526.
Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/
wiki/%C3%8D%C3%B1igo_L%C3%B3pez_de_
Mendoza_y_Z%C3%BA%C3%B1iga
1 city states were in fact feudal units controlled by
Discuss the main subject matters of
the ancient diplomacy
66
ITALIAN CITY STATES AND
RENAISSANCE DIPLOMACY
Figure 3.2 Italian City State – Florence,
Source: http://www.medievalists.net/2013/07/the-
territorial-strategy-of-the-italian-city-state/
Italian peninsula was home to certain
developments that impacted the whole European
political context especially in the 15th and 16th
centuries. Began in Florence in the 14th century,
the period called Renaissance contributed to the
developments not only in art, philosophy and
science, but also in the conduct of diplomacy.
Although the Renaissance encompasses the
developments from the 14th to 17th centuries, the
developments that contributed to the diplomatic
customs mainly took place in the late 15th century
and the 16th century (Black 2010). Italian peninsula
has come to forward, in this sense, as a region
where diplomatic interactions among political units
intensified and were conducted in accordance with
certain agreed patterns. The political structure of the
Italian peninsula was quite fragmented and it was
not under the ascendancy of single political union.
Italian peninsula was rather composed of smaller city
states which were organized as distinct principalities.
It can be asked why in the Renaissance Italy,
but not somewhere else, did the early institutions
of modern democracy emerge. Three important
factors can be noted. Firstly, the political equation
among small Italian city states facilitated the
consolidation of diplomacy as a preferred tool for
solution of the problems in the Peninsula. Italian
certain dynasties. In other words, each city state was
actually the piece of land that was held by a certain
noble aristocrat family. Within such a politically
 3
Diplomacy

fragmented context, the term between the early 14th and middle 15th centuries were quite troublesome for
the Peninsula. The disputes over land and resources dragged the Peninsula to a conflictual environment in
which a constant state of war was dominant. After long lasting fights, Peace of Lodi in 1454 brought a certain
degree of peace and stability to the region (Mattingly, 1955: 77). Most noteworthy aspect of Peace of Lodi
was that it institutionalized the functional equality among Italian city states. In other words, regardless of
their size, power and location, Italian city states came to a consensus in which they are all treated and assumed
equivalent to each other. At this point, it should be noted that the principle of functional equality can be
considered as the main constituting element of modern diplomacy. In fact, diplomatic interaction between
two political entities only started after
the mutual acceptance of equivalency
by both parties in the medieval and
Renaissance Europe. In this regard, the
institutionalization of equality through
Peace of Lodi accelerated the emergence
of diplomatic customs as a legitimate
practice in Italian Peninsula.
Secondly, the common language
that is shared by all these small city
states served as another facilitator for
diplomatic progress in the region.
Despite the lack of a political unity
among the city states, there was a
linguistic unity among them. Italian,
being the lingua franca in the Peninsula,
was accepted as the common language
for any form of correspondence among Figure 3.3
the city states. This became an asset for Source: http://slideplayer.com/slide/7272711/
the facilitation of dialogue and prepared
the ground for diplomatic interactions to become an effective tool in the interstate affairs (Mowat, 1928:
6). Thirdly, the small scale political organization due to over-fragmented political structure in the Peninsula
rendered some other coercive political tools such as war much more costly and ineffective. Italian city
states were quite small in terms of their size and capacities. In fact, some of them were not bigger than
a sum of a few adjacent villages. Accordingly, military powers of such small units were also limited. The
military capacities of minor city states with limited economic sources relied mainly on the man power of
their own serfs. Relatively bigger powers such as Florence and Naples (present time Napoli), relied rather
on mercenaries gathered from Francophone principalities and Switzerland. Therefore, Italian city states
came to understand that military methods were neither effective nor making economic sense for holding a
piece of land and solving the political disputes. On the contrary, military methods were triggering further
resentments and causing much greater military expenditures in the middle run. Therefore, a common
willingness and consensus emerged among Italian city states to solve their disputes through diplomatic
interactions instead of military methods. All these things combined paved the way for institutionalization of
diplomacy in a much deeper and organized manner in Italian Peninsula compared to elsewhere in Europe.
The content of diplomatic practice in the Renaissance Italy was also a facilitator for transition to
permanent diplomacy. As elaborated earlier, diplomatic practices and interaction did exist among political
entities even in ancient times elsewhere in the world. Yet, the content of these diplomatic practices were
far from being a model for modern diplomatic customs. The biggest obstacle for cultivation of a systematic
diplomatic custom was, of course, the issue of continuity. Diplomatic interactions of the ancient world
were built upon quite an intermittent structure and shaped in an issue-specific manner. They did play a
role in the formation of customs in the field of trade and crystallization of the borders. Yet, the modern
diplomacy, which required continuity and constant contact, emerged in the Renaissance Italy. The content

67
3
Historical Evolution of Diplomacy: Transition to Permanent Diplomacy

of the diplomatic practices in the Renaissance Italy focused mainly on long term alliances, customs union,
and defense against the intervention that would potentially come from non-Italian Europe. Such issues
constituted the content of the diplomatic talks among Italian city states constantly. Machiavelli’s famous
and influential book, Prince, can be considered as a great guideline to understand how the Renaissance
Italy institutionalized such diplomatic practices in a manner that would set the ground for transition to
permanent diplomacy. The very notion of “national interest” was suggested as the only and foremost priority
of statehood and noted as the ultimate goal of conducting diplomacy, a principle which has been dominating
the modern states system for centuries. Machiavelli also noted that constant correspondence with the envoys
sent to other countries is essential for achieving the goal of a mighty and steady state structure.
In accordance with the aim of keeping constant correspondence, we see that Italian city states were first
to invent the very notion of a resident ambassador. Envoys were sent to foreign countries before Italian
city states indeed. Yet, they were usually sent on a specific quest or to deliver a letter from the principal
to its counterpart. Italian city states in the Renaissance, on the other hand, institutionalized the practice
of having a resident ambassador in other states. The exchange of resident ambassadors first started among
the Italian-speaking political entities (Adams and Cox, 2011: 7). A resident ambassador was considered as
someone in charge who has the capacity and power to speak on behalf of its state in the hosting country.
Therefore, these resident ambassadors were trained for some years in politics, philosophy and other fields
(such as mathematics and certain fields of science) before they were sent as envoys to other countries.
Residents ambassadors were not only sent to the city states of the Italian peninsula but they were also sent
to non-Italian states as well. Hamilton and Langhorne (2011: 41) notes that the baiulo of that was sent to
Constantinople by Venetians should be considered as the first resident ambassador that was sent outside
of the Italian city states context. He was certainly a permanent representative of Venetia who acted in a
quite similar manner to a modern consul. Major difference between modern ambassadors and resident
ambassadors of the Renaissance was that usually the resident ambassadors of Renaissance were sent to
a country for a lifetime, whereas modern diplomats are rather appointed for a limited time and could
be appointed several times to different countries. This lifetime
appointment of the resident ambassadors in Renaissance also
caused certain problems such as losing the contact with the
home country after quite some time in the host country. The 2
resident ambassadors sometimes internalized the country of
Discuss the relationship between
appointment after a significant time of stay, and this caused
political context of the Italian
weakening of the ties with the home country in some cases. Born
peninsula and emergence of certain
in the Renaissance Italian Peninsula, these diplomatic practices
diplomatic practices in this region.
started to spread sporadically to the rest of Europe.

OLD DIPLOMACY
Many diplomatic practices that interactions among
Peace of Westphalia
Italian city states revealed were also copied later in other
The Peace of Westphalia is signed in 1648
regions of Europe. The emergence of modern centralized
after 30 Years’ Wars between protestant
states has been the most significant factor that triggered
and catholic German principalities. There
a need for transition to more continuous, organized and
is a consensus that the Peace of Westphalia
constant conduct of diplomacy for European states. The
introduced the modern notion of
custom that emerged in the Italian Peninsula during the
sovereignty to interstate relations, therefore,
Renaissance were spread and later institutionalized in the
is accepted as the beginning of the modern
rest of the Europe mainly after the Peace of Westphalia.
state system. It established the functional
Considering that Peace of Lodi enabled the Italian city
equality among German principalities
states to act on and functionally equal basis, the Peace of
regardless of their religious/sectarian
Westphalia signed in 1648 served the same purpose on a
orientation, size and power.
larger scale in a manner to include primary actors of Europe.

68

Diplomacy
Thirty Years’ Wars, which settled through the
Peace of Westphalia, was mainly a fight over the
status of the principalities from different Christian
sectarian backgrounds. The demand of Protestant
German-speaking principalities for being treated
equal and legitimate by Catholic principalities were
met with the Peace of Westphalia. In this regard,
the Peace of Westphalia prepared a political ground
in which all German-speaking principalities were
accepted as functionally equal to each other
regardless of their sectarian orientations (Kissinger,
1994; Gross, 1993; Watson, 1992). As noted
above, equality between parties has always been
a prerequisite for an active diplomatic contact.
Thus, the Peace of Westphalia did not only start
the process of emergence of modern state system,
but also accelerated and facilitated the transition to
permanent diplomatic institutions in Western and
Northern Europe.
With the Peace of Westphalia, German
principalities institutionalized the notion of
resident ambassador just like Italian city states did
in the 16th century. In the beginning, most of the
principals sent their envoys to Brandenburg-Prussia
and other great powers in the German world. In
the longer run, keeping a permanent diplomatic
mission in other countries spread all over German
principalities. Principals preferred to have resident
diplomatic missions mostly in farer principalities, as
closer or neighboring principalities were accessible
through short trips.
The British also copied and internalized these
diplomatic customs. British envoys were sent to
the states of the continental Europe mainly after
the Peace of Westphalia. Britain, being one of
the actors in the peace talks, did not withdraw its
committee from Münster and Osnabrück, two
German-speaking cities where peace talks took
place, and distributed this team later to Sweden,
France, Brandenburg-Prussia and Denmark.
Although several British diplomatic missions were
sent to other countries earlier, resident ambassadors
in European countries became a British diplomatic
custom mainly after 1648.
France can be noted as one exception to this.
Although France did have envoys and resident
diplomatic missions in several countries as early as
the beginnings of 16th century, it did not follow
the general European fashion to build resident and
3
constant diplomatic missions in European capitals.
Yet, France has come forward as the country which
kept most active contact with the Muslim world.
French envoys were sent to Ottoman Empire in
1535 and Safavid Empire (present day Iran) in
1600s (Black, 2010: 54). Still, France was late to
institutionalize the resident ambassadors compared
to other primary European powers. Yet, it is also
worthy to note that once the French developed
their own diplomatic system, it was admired by
other European states as it was first fully-developed
system of diplomacy (Berridge, 2010: 103).
Two important diplomatic practices also
turned into a general diplomatic practice in this
term. Firstly, diplomatic immunity was recognized
by all parties in Europe as a general principle
of diplomacy. In this regard, immunity was
guaranteed multilaterally to assure the credibility
and authenticity of the information delivered by
the envoys. In other words, the immunity granted
to the diplomats and envoys aimed at making the
diplomatic crew feel comfortable so that they would
not manipulate the message to be delivered in order
to guarantee their own security. This diplomatic
custom was later institutionalized and legalized
in 1961 Vienna Convention on Diplomatic
Relations, yet it remained as a respected principle
mainly after the middle 17th century. Secondly,
arrival of a new diplomatic mission to a capital
started to be welcomed ceremonially by the host
country. Today’s ‘agrément’ ceremonies originate
from these ceremonies which became a fashion of
early 18th century in Europe.
Diplomatic Immunity
Diplomatic immunity is a universal
principle of modern diplomacy which
refers to legal immunity of diplomats
and diplomatic missions. According to
diplomatic immunity principle, diplomats
are not susceptible to lawsuits and
diplomatic missions such that embassies are
immune from the intervention of the host
country. Diplomatic immunity has been
an important custom in the transition to
permanent diplomacy.
69
3
Historical Evolution of Diplomacy: Transition to Permanent Diplomacy
3 the King was balanced and limited by the Etats-
Discuss the important diplomatic
practices in terms of the Peace of
Westphalia is signed in 1648 after 30
Years’ Wars.
TRANSITION TO PERMANENT
DIPLOMACY
Figure 3.4 Embassy of the United States of America in
Ljubljana, Slovenia
Source: https://www.istockphoto.com/tr/fotoğraf/
embassy-of-the-united-states-of-america-in-ljubljana-
gm491921312-76024483
So-called “Old Diplomacy” presented
a diplomatic practice in which permanent
institutions and customs of diplomacy started
to crystalize and consolidate. In this regard, the
period after the Peace of Westphalia was a term
that opened the door for a transition to permanent
diplomacy. Yet, the consolidation of the permanent
practices and customs was mainly achieved after
Congress of Vienna in 1814-1815 (Kissinger,
2014: 60). On that sense, the Napoleonic Wars
played quite a significant role for European
political elites to think deeper about the diplomatic
practices. To understand the relationship between
the political developments after Napoleonic Wars
and diplomatic practices, a quick review of the
period is necessary.
70
After the French Revolution of 1789, France
turned into a constitutional monarchy in which
Generaux Yet, the turmoil continued in the post-
revolution term, and eventually monarchy was
abolished completely and replaced with the First
Republic. Napoleon Bonaparte came forward
as a charismatic figure in the French politics and
became the president of the Republic. Yet, he
abolished the Republic and declared himself as
the Emperor. These developments in the French
domestic politics disquieted the monarchs of the
Europe deeply as Napoleon put a solid challenge to
the very idea of conservative European monarchies.
It could be seen ironic that Napoleon himself
abolished the Republic and turned himself into a
monarch, yet he imposed nationalist republics in
the states that he controlled through Napoleonic
Wars. In other words, Napoleon appeared as
the distributer of two very dangerous ideologies
throughout the Europe: republicanism and
nationalism. The former is dangerous because it
poses a challenge to the very idea of monarchy, in
fact, it is the anti-thesis of monarchy. The latter is
dangerous because almost all European monarchies
were relying on multi-national empires and the
nationalist ideology would mean the dissolution
of these multi-national empires, which later caused
so. After defeating Napoleon following long-lasting
and bloody wars, European monarchs gathered in
Vienna to discuss the conditions for restoration of
monarchy in France and setting the new balance
of power. Political implications of the Congress
of Vienna are plenty and important, but here we
focus mainly on the effects of the Congress on the
diplomatic institutions.
Firstly, the Congress set the idea of “balance of
power” as a steady diplomatic priority for European
monarchs (Kissinger, 1994: 325). European
monarchs aimed at constructing a diplomatic
context in which all actors react similarly and in a
coordinated manner in case of an attempt by any
other power to dominate European neighbors. In
this sense, the Congress determined the content
of the new diplomatic context in Europe, and this
content put balance of power before any other
agenda items. This can be considered as a collective
security umbrella for the European states system.
Hence, it is fair to argue that the Congress of
Vienna introduced collective security conceptions

Diplomacy
into the agenda of diplomacy, which continued
to be one of the most important agenda items in
European diplomacy in the following centuries as
well. Secondly, the Congress of Vienna enclaved
diplomacy into a conservative sphere. In fact, the
Concert of Europe that came out of the Congress
was quite a conservative order in the sense that it
relied on the absolute preservation of monarchies
all around Europe. European diplomacy and
permanent diplomatic missions agreed on that
European states should be ruled with monarchies
and legitimacy of these political systems does not
need a popular vote. In this regard, European
diplomatic machinery aimed at preservation of this
system and act collaboratively against any challenge
to monarchies.
After the Congress of Vienna, permanent
diplomacy was a model followed by all European
powers including Ottoman Empire. All European
states started to establish their own domestic
machineries for the institutionalization and
continuity of the diplomatic practices. Three
main important developments can be noted
for the full transition to permanent diplomacy:
professionalization and recruitment, administrative
structuration and emergence of ministries.
Professionalization and
Recruitment
As mentioned above, the institutions of the
permanent diplomacy started to emerge mainly
after the Peace of Westphalia. The period after
the Congress of Vienna, however, was the term in
which diplomacy appeared as a distinct subject-
field and diplomatic career become a specific
profession. In this sense, professionalization of
the diplomatic career should be considered as
one of the main cornerstones in the transition to
permanent diplomacy.
Before the late 18th and early 19th centuries,
the diplomatic missions and envoys sent to other
countries were expected to be accommodated and
funded by the host state (Hamilton and Langhorne,
2011: 61). Yet, this was quite problematic for the
country of origin in terms of having a trustworthy
relationship with their own envoys. As noted earlier,
in some cases the envoys lost their contact with the
home country and internalized the identity of the
host country after some years of stay. Therefore,
3
professionalization of the diplomatic civil servants
appeared as a necessity for the continuity and
reliability of the diplomatic contact. To this aim,
European states followed a threefold strategy.
Firstly, they allocated generous budgets for the
accommodation and expenses of the diplomatic
missions sent to other countries. By the end of the
first half of the 1800s, all European states were
funding their own diplomatic missions in other
capitals of Europe. One exception to this was the
Ottoman Empire, as it continued to pay some sort
of allowance for foreign diplomatic missions in
Istanbul (Yurdusev, 2004: 5-35). “The regularity of
payment and level of salary both improved, though
the significance of the latter was partly offset both
by inflation and by the increased activities of the
resident” (Hamilton and Langhorne, 2011: 63).
With this new fashion in Europe, the financial
difficulties that ambassadors and diplomatic
missions suffer from were overcome. Furthermore,
the diplomatic profession started to be seen as a
guarantee for higher standards of life. Towards the
end of the 19th century, many diplomatic missions
were seen as living a flamboyant life by other civil
servants working in other institutions of the state
machinery. Yet, the financial guarantee provided by
governments to their diplomatic missions helped
consolidation of diplomacy as a permanent and
structured practice to a great deal.
Secondly, the recruitment process was also
professionalized in the post-Congress of Vienna
term in many European states. In the 18th century,
envoys, ambassadors and accompanying crew
were selected from experienced and reliable civil
servants closer to the ruler. In other words, the
personal relationship between the ambassador and
the ruler was seen as the necessary credit for being
appointed in charge of conducting diplomacy with
another state. With the wave of professionalization,
diplomacy started to be acknowledged as a distinct
expertise. With this approach, recruitment of the
diplomatic staff was also reconsidered. States came
to understand that a strong relationship between
the palace and the civil servant is not enough for a
skillful diplomat. Therefore, a specific recruitment
for diplomatic missions started to take place first
in France, later in Habsburgs and Britain. After
the recruitment, the diplomatic staff were also
subject to additional training. Some training were
provided to senior and experienced staff such as
71
3
Historical Evolution of Diplomacy: Transition to Permanent Diplomacy
ambassadors for them to be able to recruit their
own staff such as administrative attachés. Having a
secretariat in the embassy building became a general
trend in Europe, and ambassadors were rendered
fully in charge for determining the administrative
personnel. Expansion of the diplomatic missions
also required a deeper and better planned training
curriculum, which was developed later and
included modules varying from general rules of
manners to diplomatic correspondence techniques.
Besides, language courses were also provided to
newly appointed diplomatic staff.
Thirdly, as different from the 18th century
resident ambassadors, the ambassadors of
permanent diplomacy in the 19th century were not
only seen as the envoys of their ruler. They were also
authorized to develop instant policies as a reaction
to sudden developments and crisis situations. This
should be noted as one of the major novelties
of modern diplomacy as it represents a decisive
departure from previous nuncius-like ambassadors
and diplomats. In the former version, ambassadors
were fully bound with the pre-defined tasks that
the government assigned to them. They were not in
a position to develop strategies or policies instantly
and independently. The resident ambassadors of
the 19th century did sometimes take initiatives to
develop instant policies under limited time and
communication circumstances. It should not be
understood as fully maverick ambassadors that
invent new policies regardless of their government
policy. Rather, this is a novelty that enabled
ambassadors act in a creative and constructive
manner when an undefined situation occurred.
Administrative Structuration and
Hierarchy
Another important cornerstone in the transition
to a fully modern and organized diplomacy was to
define the posts, hierarchy and structure within an
embassy. There was no confusion about the head
of the diplomatic mission in a country. Obviously,
the highest post in charge was the ambassador.
Yet, other members of the crew did have conflicts
due to confusions about posts, positions and their
assigned duties. The blurred lines of duties and lack
of hierarchy created certain problems.
72
“For a time, a common way of relieving the
problem was to delegate powerful activities into
the hands not of constitutionally appointed and
circumscribed ministers, but of temporary favorites.
The effect was to blur the lines of responsibility in
diplomacy and foreign policy as much as in any other
area of government, and to expose ambassadors to
great difficulties and frequent humiliations, as the
power struggle, or sometimes power vacuum, at home
produced conflicting policies derived from several
sources.” (Hamilton and Langhorne, 2011: 65).
Another difficulty arising from the lack of
clearly defined posts and hierarchies was the issue of
espionage. The paper work and archival documents
of the embassy were exposed to the access of any staff
member in the embassy, which caused espionage
in some cases. There was no clear distinction
between those who are responsible for diplomatic
correspondence and those who are responsible for
the daily routines of the embassy. It was also not
clear who reports to whom, under what authority
and scope. As early as the beginning of the 1800s,
this issue was noticed by many governments in
Europe, so that they started to define the hierarchy
and specific posts within an embassy. According to
this hierarchy, the ambassador was set as the head
of the diplomatic mission, whereas the envoys
came second in the hierarchical order after the
ambassador. In relatively bigger missions, consuls
reported to envoys.
Another important clarification was about the
assigned duties of the embassy staff. The classical
distinction between administrative staff and career
diplomats was made in middle 1800s. According to
this distinction, administrative staff were not allowed
to read the diplomatic correspondence, encrypted
messages and policy documents of the embassy.
Career diplomats including the ambassador, the
envoy, the second secretary and the consul and
specifically assigned less senior career diplomats
were determined as only authorized personnel
to conduct diplomacy and access the necessary
documents. This distinction between administrative
and career diplomats is still followed in almost all
departments of foreign affairs in all around the
world. It should also be noted that attachés were
not considered within the hierarchy of the embassy,
as they are appointed as the representatives of other

Diplomacy
departments within the government to diplomatic
missions, though it was a common practice that
they reported to the ambassador. Since then, the
post of attaché appeared as an essential post within
permanent diplomatic institutions.
Emergence of Ministries of
Foreign Affairs
Today, almost all the states in the world have
a specific ministry in charge of determining and
conducting foreign policy. Yet, this was not the
in case. Modern foreign ministries originated
mainly from European states, and it has not been
even 250 years that the first foreign ministry was
founded under government structure (Berridge,
2010: 5). As diplomacy was professionalized and
acknowledged as a field which requires special
expertise and training, the states of Europe also
recognized the need for a specific ministry under
the government which is solely responsible from
the conduct of foreign policy. France was again the
first country which initiated a specific department
responsible from the foreign policy. In Ancien
Régime, Henry III initiated a department and
gave the sole responsibility in foreign policy to a
specific department under the government as early
as 1589 (Berridge, 2010: 6). Yet, it should be noted
that this department was far from a ministerial
structure compared to modern ministries of foreign
affairs. In fact, religious affairs were the dominant
theme in the agenda of this department, as it was
in contact mainly with the authorities in Vatican.
In fact, almost all of the personnel working in this
department were coming from a clergy background.
Famous Cardinal Richelieu made certain reforms
in 1630s to restructure this department in a more
organized manner. However, the emergence of
a ministry as a modern department of foreign
affairs had to wait until the overthrow of the
Ancien Régime. Still, France was earlier than other
European states to initiate a ministry whose sole
responsibility was to conduct foreign policy.
Ancien Régime
This is a French term that refers to the
corrupted traditional monarchy in France
before the French Revolution.
3
Other European states did follow France and
they started to open such ministries one by one,
though each of these ministries were organized
under different titles and through different models.
It was toward the end of the 19th century that
these ministries developed into more sophisticated
organizations and recognized by other states
as an agent of foreign policy. In the beginning,
most of these organs were organized into specific
administrative units and regional focuses. In the
case of Britain, for instance, it was initiated as an
undersecretary whose responsibility was no more
than an organ that provided the correspondence
(Steiner 1982). As time wore on, these organs also
acquired policy making functions.
Different titles for this organ were used in
different countries. In the case of the United States,
for instance, the very first ministry responsible from
foreign policy was the ‘Department of Foreign
Affairs, which was established by the Congress in
January 1781. Yet, the American case represents
an interesting one, as the Department was given
certain domestic duties as well by the end of 1780s.
In 1789, the Department was given the duty of
keeping the Great Seal of the United States and
conducting the census. Therefore, the title of the
department was changed to ‘Department of State’,
which is a broader title (Berridge, 2010: 7). In the
longer run, the duty of the Department of State
became more specific again and focused only on
foreign policy. Yet, American version of foreign
ministry still uses this title today.
What were the duties of these specific ministries
of foreign affairs? Although this had varied from
case to case, within the political context of early
20th century, the tasks of foreign ministries started
to become alike in many examples of the world.
Firstly, policy making mission was given to this
ministry. Based on the political system, these
ministries served under the executive organs of
their governments and executed the foreign policy
of their respective countries. It can be argued that
foreign ministries remained more autonomous
in the European countries, most of which relied
on parliamentary systems, whereas American
Department of States were more bound to the
presidential influence, as it was modeled on a strong
presidential system. This could be considered as why
many American presidents are remembered today
with their specific foreign policy doctrines, which
73
3
Historical Evolution of Diplomacy: Transition to Permanent Diplomacy

were internalized and followed by the Department.

(Monroe Doctrine, Eisenhower Doctrine, Wilson
Doctrine etc.). Secondly, these ministries were
also given the task of staffing and supporting
the missions abroad. As touched upon earlier, as
the recruitment process became more specific as
diplomats were professionalized, these ministries
also became prominent organs responsible for
staffing and supporting the missions sent to other
countries. Thirdly, they started to coordinated
foreign relations especially after the Great War
(WWI). In relatively optimistic environment of
the WWI, the diplomacy was credited much more
than coercive methods thanks to the efforts of
American president Woodrow Wilson. In such a
context, in accordance with Wilson’s principle on
open diplomacy, foreign ministries were rendered
as the only responsible organs for conducting and
coordinating the relations with other countries,
instead of secret initiatives of leaders and military
figures. Fourthly, dealing with foreign diplomats
hosted in the home country was also assigned to
these ministries. Last but not least, especially after
the Second World War, foreign ministries were
also assigned the duty of building and getting
the support of domestic and international public.
In this respect, public diplomacy has come into
prominence over the last few decades as a major
duty of many ministries of foreign affairs in the
world.
Finally, it should be noted that these ministries
may use different titles in different countries. For
example, Australian version includes the term
‘trade’, and uses ‘Department of Foreign Affairs
and Trade, while Belgian version has even a broader
title: ‘Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Foreign Trade
and Development Aid.’ A simple title of ‘Ministry
of Foreign Affairs’ is used by many countries
such as Turkey, Italy, Japan, China, whereas more
specific titles were also adapted by some other
countries like Senegalese ministry, ‘Ministry of
Foreign Affairs, the African Union and Senegalese
Abroad’, like South African version, ‘Department
of International Relations and Cooperation’.
Figure 3.5 The building of the Ministry of foreign
Affairs of Russia, Smolensk Square in Moscow.
Source: https://www.istockphoto.com/tr/fotoğraf/
the-building-of-the-ministry-of-foreign-affairs-of-russia-
gm511031912-86497591
4
Discuss the emergence of ministries of
foreign affairs in France.
NEW DIPLOMACY
What is referred as “new diplomacy” in this
chapter does not refer to a complete new paradigm
of the conduct of diplomacy; rather it aims to
emphasize certain new attachments to diplomatic
practice which mainly emerged with the post-Cold
War term. Thus, it is necessary to take a quick
snapshot of newly rising trends in permanent
diplomacy. The end of the Cold War did not
only change the structure of world politics, it also
opened the so-called Pandora’s Box of new actors,
new strategies and reconsidered conceptions of
diplomacy. The Cold War context had created a
political environment in which security concerns
dominated every other aspects of the social and
political agenda. In such a hard security atmosphere,
states have come forward as not only primary but
also mere actors of the international politics. Thusly,
diplomacy was understood as a practice in which
states correspond with one another. In fact, even

74

Diplomacy
diplomats and leaders were considered as “selfless”
(Jervis, 1998: 989), because they were the agents
of states and act upon states’ specific agenda. Yet,
the end of the Cold war gradually eased the hard
security concerns of states and opened a space for
new actors to get involved in diplomatic practice.
As noted above, it would be an exaggeration
to argue that the major principles of permanent
diplomacy changed due to the end of the Cold
War. Yet, it would also be flawed to neglect the
fact that certain significant developments gained
momentum. Firstly, the nature of foreign policy
shifted from a pure state-centric to a more multi-
actor and multi-factorial ground. Neack (2008)
calls this new form of foreign policy as “new foreign
policy” and argues that new foreign policy has the
characteristics mentioned below:
• “Foreign policy is made and conducted
in complex domestic and international
environments.
• Foreign policy results from the work of
coalitions of interested domestic and
international actors and groups.
• Foreign policy issues are often linked and
delinked, reflecting the strength of various
parties and their particular concerns.
• The “stuff” of foreign policy derives from
issues of domestic politics as well as foreign
relations.
• Foreign policy analysis needs to be
multilevel and multifaceted in order to
confront the complicated sources and
nature of foreign policy.” (Neack, 2008: 6).
In accordance with this developments, new
diplomacy also included the practices of certain
interest groups, non-governmental organizations,
transnational solidarity movements and even
ordinary individuals. Especially with the
introduction of the Internet, diplomacy is no
longer considered as a practice that diplomats
conduct, but all these abovementioned actors
started to pursue their own agendas and take part
in the game of diplomacy. Track II diplomacy,
3
meaning the diplomatic conduct run by non-state
actors and influential non-diplomatic individuals,
became a new diplomatic tool recognized by states
as well.
Track II diplomacy
Track II diplomacy is a term that refers to
non-conventional diplomacy conducted
by not only diplomatic crews, but
also by influential individuals (such as
artists, authors or celebrities). Track II
diplomatic practices usually take place
during mediation efforts, formation of
peace missions and campaign for more
universal causes instead of a political
agenda of a specific state. In other words,
Track II diplomacy is a non-official effort
to facilitate the official diplomatic context
towards a cooperative solution. For more
information, see Agha et. Al. 2003;
Chataway 1998. Homans 2011).
Secondly, states also noted these changes in the
nature of the diplomacy and they also developed
new strategies to address the new necessities of
international politics. Amongst others, public
diplomacy has come forward as a new and steady
institution within the permanent machineries
of diplomacy. Many states initiated the public
diplomacy departments under their governments
to address to peoples instead of other governments.
In other words, transition to permanent diplomacy
did not finish the evolution of diplomacy, on
the contrary, permanent diplomacy has been
continuing to evolve in accordance with the newly
emerging circumstance of political world.
5
Discuss the Track II Diplomacy.
75
3
Historical Evolution of Diplomacy: Transition to Permanent Diplomacy

In Practice Wikileaks and Diplomatic Immunity

New technologies, scientific advancements and computer technologies were also adapted by
the diplomatic institutions since 1960s. Today, mathematical models, encryption techniques and
enciphering methods are used to protect the secrecy of the diplomatic correspondence. The world
politics, yet, was shaken with the leaking of top secret diplomatic documents in 2010, which
revealed more than one hundred thousand diplomatic correspondence and exposed these documents
to public access. Wikileaks, which is organized as a civil society movement, was the organization
that circulated these documentation and Julian Assange was recognized as the spokesperson of this
organization. Leaked documents revealed many inner top secret correspondence between diplomatic
missions and their ministry of foreign affairs. For instance, the reports about civilian killings, several
videos of ‘collateral damage’ and correspondence to put pressure on media organs were among leaked
documents.
Although it was not related to the Wikileaks incident, Julian Assange was found guilty for sexual
assault in a court case in Sweden in 2010. Although Assange denied the allegations, Swedish court
issued a warrant of arrest for him. Assange was concerned that ‘if he was arrested’ he would be
extradited to the United States for revealing secret documents of the American intelligence. Therefore,
he took a refuge in Ecuador Embassy in London in 2012. Ecuador government granted asylum to
Assange and he lives in the Embassy in London since then. This is a good case for showing how
diplomatic immunity is a respected diplomatic practice and norm today. Today, embassy buildings,
according to diplomatic immunity principle, are accepted as the territory of countries, hence, these
buildings are immune from the intervention of the host countries. Assange cannot leave the embassy
building, because the British police would arrest him as he leaves the embassy borders.

76
 3
Diplomacy

Track the roots of modern diplomacy

LO 1 back to the period starting from
ancient times to renaissance.

Transition to permanent diplomacy cannot be limited to the period when modern states
systems were dominant. In fact, roots of the modern diplomacy can even trace back to
ancient times. The diplomatic interactions among the political entities of the old world
can be noted as the first signals of diplomatic practices. The term “Old World” here refers
to a period of time starting from the ancient world to emergence of Renaissance especially
in Italian peninsula. The political authorities of the “Old World” were far from being as
organized as modern state structures. Yet, they have certain contacts with each other. Two

Summary
important characteristics of the diplomatic interaction in the old world can be noted:
• Diplomatic contacts in the ancient world were not continuous; rather they were
characterized by intermittency.
• Ancient diplomatic practices were not operated through permanent institutions. Rather,
special envoys, soldiers or some individuals who had close relationship with the rulers
were acting as the diplomats.
Due to lack of organization in the diplomacy and issue of intermittency, diplomatic
practices of the ancient world were not shaped in accordance with accepted diplomatic
patterns. Rather, they were issue-specific, sporadic and sometimes relied too much on
personal relationship between the rulers.

Examine the emergence of certain

LO 2 diplomatic practices such as resident
embassies among Italian city states.

Italian peninsula was home to intense diplomatic interactions among the Italian city states
during the Renaissance.
These interactions prepared the ground for emergence of certain elements of permanent
diplomacy. Three important factors can be noted as the reasons for the emergence of such
diplomatic interactions ‘specifically in Italian peninsula’ earlier than any other regions.
Firstly, the political equation among small Italian city states facilitated the consolidation
of diplomacy as a preferred tool for solution of the problems in the Peninsula. Italian city
states were in fact feudal units controlled by certain dynasties. In other words, each city
state was actually the piece of land that was held by a certain noble aristocrat family. Peace
of Lodi in 1454 brought a certain degree of peace and stability to the region and set all
Italian city states functionally equal to each other. This equity among these states facilitated
the diplomatic interactions among them. Secondly, the common language that is shared by
all these small city states served as another facilitator for diplomatic progress in the region.
Thirdly, due to the small armies and limited economic resources, diplomacy appeared as a
more viable tool compared to war.
We see that Italian city states were also first to invent the very notion of a resident
ambassador. Italian city states in the Renaissance institutionalized the practice of having
a resident ambassador in other states. The exchange of resident ambassadors first started
among the Italian-speaking political entities. A resident ambassador was considered as
someone in charge who has the capacity and power to speak on behalf of its state in the
hosting country. These ambassadors were also sent to non-Italian states later.

77
3
Historical Evolution of Diplomacy: Transition to Permanent Diplomacy

Note the main aspects of diplomatic

LO 3 practices between Peace of
Westphalia and Vienna Congress

The period between Peace of Westphalia (1648) and the Congress of Vienna (1814, 1815) is the
time frame the so-called ‘Old Diplomacy’ practices took place. Transition to permanent diplomatic
institutions and customs gained momentum in the term of Old Diplomacy. In fact, sending resident
ambassadors to other states were spread to whole Europe in this term. With the Peace of Westphalia,
German principalities institutionalized the notion of resident ambassador just like Italian city states did
in the 16th century. In the beginning, most of the principals sent their envoys to Brandenburg-Prussia
and other great powers in the German world. In the longer run, keeping a permanent diplomatic
Summary

mission in other countries spread all over German principalities.

The British also copied and internalized these diplomatic customs. British envoys were sent to the states
of the continental Europe mainly after the Peace of Westphalia. Britain, being one of the actors in the
peace talks, did not withdraw its committee from Münster and Osnabrück, two German-speaking
cities where peace talks took place, and distributed this team later to Sweden, France, Brandenburg-
Prussia and Denmark.
France has come forward as the country which kept most active contact with the Muslim world.
French envoys were sent to the Ottoman Empire in 1535 and the Safavid Empire (present day Iran)
in 1600s.
Diplomatic immunity was recognized by all parties in Europe as a general principle of diplomacy in
this term. Besides, agrément ceremonies were institutionalized as a general practice.

Examine the emergence of

LO 4 diplomatic missions and specific
ministries of foreign affairs.

After the Congress of Vienna, transition to permanent institutions was fully in motion. The permanent
diplomacy and modern diplomatic customs were institutionalized mainly after the Congress of Vienna.
The Congress set the idea of “balance of power” as a steady diplomatic priority for European monarchs.
The Congress determined the content of the new diplomatic context in Europe, and this content
put balance of power before any other agenda items. This can be considered as a collective security
umbrella for the European states system.
After the Congress of Vienna, permanent diplomacy was a model followed by all European powers
including Ottoman Empire. All European states started to establish their own domestic machineries
for the institutionalization and continuity of the diplomatic practices. Three main important
developments can be noted for the full transition to permanent diplomacy: professionalization and
recruitment, administrative structuration and emergence of ministries.
• Professionalization of the diplomatic mission: Diplomats were subject to special training. Besides,
the recruitment process also changed in accordance with the professionalization of the diplomacy.
Funding of the diplomatic crew abroad became the responsibility of the home country.
• Administrative structure: The hierarchy within the embassy was also defined in this term.
Ambassadors were set as the chief in charge within an embassy. It is also this term in which a
distinction between administrative staff and career diplomats was made.
Emergence of ministries: Many European states established the specific ministry whose sole
responsibility was conducting foreign policy. In the continental Europe, France was the first country
to establish a specific ministry. Later other countries followed France and they also initiated this
ministry. Foreign ministries were responsible for making foreign policy, setting the foreign relations,
coordinating the embassies abroad and dealing with the foreign diplomats hosted in the country.

78
 3
Diplomacy

Categorizing the differing features

LO 5 of the contemporary diplomacy in
late 20th and 21st centuries.

Especially in the post-Cold War era, diplomacy gained some

new characteristics. Firstly, due to eased security concern, hard
security was no longer the dominant theme of the diplomacy.
Issues such as peacekeeping, peacebuilding and humanitarian
aid became more prominent in multilateral diplomacy.
Secondly, states were no longer the only actors of diplomacy.
Some non-state actors such as NGOs, transnational solidarity

Summary
movements and even ordinary individuals started to play a
role in the composition of the diplomatic practices. Track II
diplomacy was acknowledged also by states and governments
developed policies to use track II diplomacy as an instrument.

79
3
Historical Evolution of Diplomacy: Transition to Permanent Diplomacy
1 What are the characteristics of diplomatic
interactions in the ancient world?
a. Ancient diplomacy is conducted through per-
manent institutions.
Test Yourself
b. Ancient diplomatic practices were intermittent
and non-continuous.
c. Diplomatic interactions in the ancient world
rely on resident ambassadors.
d. Diplomatic interactions in the ancient world
were multilateral
e. Ancient diplomatic practices promoted collecti-
ve identity.
2 Which of the following is not a term that is
relevant for the diplomatic interactions in the ‘Old
World’?
a. Nuncius
b. Respublica Christiana
c. Brotherhood Diplomacy
d. Faith-based Diplomacy
e. Resident ambassadors
3 What characteristic of diplomacy relatively
originated from the diplomatic interactions among
Italian city states during the Renaissance?
a. Functional equality among the parties.
b. Having a specific ministry the whole responsibility
of which is conducting and making foreign policy.
c. Track II diplomatic actors.
d. Clearly defined diplomatic hierarchy.
e. Distinction between administrative and career
diplomats.
80
4 Diplomatic interactions among the Italian
city states were considered as one of the early
examples of attempts to professionalize diplomacy
and transition to permanent diplomacy. Which of
the following can be considered as a major reason
for the emergence of these attempts in the Italian
Peninsula earlier than other regions of the World?
a. Italian city states were more peaceful than the
rest of the Europeans.
b. Italian city states accepted the equivalency
among each other and this facilitated the direct
diplomatic contact between equal states.
c. Italy was a state with a strong tradition of
diplomacy.
d. Other states were more inclined to war.
e. The geography of Italy enabled states to conduct
diplomacy.
5 Which of the following emerged as one of
the cornerstones in the transition to permanent
diplomacy mainly in the terms of ‘Old Diplomacy’?
a. Functional equality and modern sovereignty
b. Ministries of Foreign Affairs
c. Professionalization of diplomacy and diplomats
d. Specific training curricula in diplomacy
e. Congress diplomacy
6 In contemporary diplomacy, diplomatic
immunity is one of the main principles that is
accepted and respected universally. In which
specific period did this principle emerge and was
introduced to diplomacy?
a. New Diplomacy period which emerged mainly
after the Great War
b. Ancient Diplomacy which took place mainly
from ancient times to Italian Renaissance
c. Renaissance period, specifically in Italy
d. Post-Congress of Vienna Term
e. Old Diplomacy period which specifically refers
to period between the Peace of Westphalia and
the Congress of Vienna
 3
Diplomacy

7 The diplomatic environment of Europe in 9 Which European state was the first to estab-
the post-Vienna Congress was argued to be built lish a ministry of foreign affairs?
on quite a conservative understanding. Which of
the following can be considered as a reason for this a. Italy
conservatism in early permanent diplomacy? b. France

Test Yourself
c. Prussia
a. The diplomatic context focused mainly on
d. Britain
preservation of traditional monarchies and
balance of power. e. Austria-Hungary
b. Diplomats of Europe in the 19th century were
coming from a conservative background. 10 Which of the following is a term that gained
relevancy mainly in the late 20th and early 21st
c. Conservatism is embedded in the modern
centuries?
diplomacy.
d. Diplomatic crews wanted to protect their own a. Resident ambassador
prestigious status in their respective states. b. Nuncius
e. European politics is conservative in its nature. c. Track II diplomacy
d. Congress diplomacy
8 Which of the following was set as the chief of e. Secret diplomacy
a diplomatic mission?
a. Envoy
b. Consul
c. Minister
d. Ambassador
e. Attaché

81
3
Historical Evolution of Diplomacy: Transition to Permanent Diplomacy

If your answer is not E, revisit the part about

1. b If your answer is not B, revisit the part 6. e Old Diplomacy that took part between the
about diplomacy in the Ancient World. Peace of Westphalia and the Congress of
Vienna.

If your answer is not E, revisit the part

Answer Key for “Test Yourself”

2. e 7. a If your answer is not A, revisit the part

about diplomatic terms in the Ancient
about transition to permanent diplomacy.
World.

If your answer is not D, revisit the part

3. a If your answer is not A, revisit the part
about diplomacy in Italian city states.
If your answer is not B, revisit the part
4. b about reasons for emergence of diplomatic
interactions among Italian city states during
the Renaissance.
5. a If your answer is not A, revisit the part
about Old Diplomacy.
8. d
about the emergence of hierarchies in a
diplomatic mission.
9. b If your answer is not B, revisit the part
about emergence of foreign ministries.
If your answer is not C, revisit the part
10. c
about New Diplomacy in the post-Cold
War era.

Discuss the main subject matters of the

ancient diplomacy
Suggested answer for “Your Turn”

The main subject matters of the ancient diplomacy were about the general
principles of trade and ascendancy talks. For the former, the security of the
trade paths were guaranteed through such diplomatic talks among the city
states and local authorities. Such interaction among the city states set the
your turn 1 principles of trade and assured the security of merchant caravans. Ascendancy
related diplomatic practices focused mainly on the political unity formed
by those city states. Within the political context of the “Old World”, the
diplomatic interactions related with ascendancy were shaped mainly on the
basis of material capacities.

Discuss the relationship between political context

of the Italian peninsula and emergence of certain
diplomatic practices in this region.

Italian peninsula was home to certain developments that impacted the whole
European political context especially in the 15th and 16th centuries. Began in
Florence in the 14th century, the period called Renaissance contributed to the
developments not only in art, philosophy and science, but also in the conduct
of diplomacy. Although the Renaissance encompasses the developments
your turn 2 from the 14th to 17th centuries, the developments that contributed to the
diplomatic customs mainly took place in the late 15th century and the 16th
century (Black 2010). Italian peninsula has come to forward, in this sense,
as a region where diplomatic interactions among political units intensified
and were conducted in accordance with certain agreed patterns. The political
structure of the Italian peninsula was quite fragmented and it was not under
the ascendancy of single political union. Italian peninsula was rather composed
of smaller city states which were organized as distinct principalities.
82
 3
Diplomacy

Discuss the important diplomatic practices in terms of the

Peace of Westphalia is signed in 1648 after 30 Years’ Wars.

Two important diplomatic practices also turned into a general diplomatic

Suggested Answers for “Your Turn”

practice in this term. Firstly, diplomatic immunity was recognized by all
parties in Europe as a general principle of diplomacy. In this regard, immunity
was guaranteed multilaterally to assure the credibility and authenticity of the
information delivered by the envoys. In other words, the immunity granted
to the diplomats and envoys aimed at making the diplomatic crew feel
your turn 3 comfortable so that they would not manipulate the message to be delivered
in order to guarantee their own security. This diplomatic custom was later
institutionalized and legalized in 1961 Vienna Convention on Diplomatic
Relations, yet it remained as a respected principle mainly after the middle 17th
century. Secondly, arrival of a new diplomatic mission to a capital started to
be welcomed ceremonially by the host country. Today’s ‘agrément’ ceremonies
originate from these ceremonies which became a fashion of the early 18th
century in Europe.

Discuss the emergence of ministries of foreign affairs in France.

Today, almost all of the states in the world have a specific ministry in charge
of determining and conducting foreign policy. Yet, this was not the case.
Modern foreign ministries originated mainly from European states, and it has
not been even 250 years that the first foreign ministry was founded under
government structure. As diplomacy was professionalized and acknowledged
as a field which requires special expertise and training, the states of Europe
also recognized the need for a specific ministry under the government which
is solely responsible for the conduct of foreign policy. France was again the
first country which initiated a specific department responsible for the foreign
policy. In Ancien Régime, Henry III initiated a department and gave the sole
your turn 4 responsibility in foreign policy to a specific department under the government
as early as 1589. Yet, it should be noted that this department was far from a
ministerial structure compared to modern ministries of foreign affairs. In fact,
religious affairs were the dominant theme in the agenda of this department,
as it was in contact mainly with the authorities in Vatican. In fact, almost
all of the personnel working in this department were coming from a clergy
background. Famous Cardinal Richelieu made certain reforms in 1630s
to restructure this department in a more organized manner. However, the
emergence of a ministry as a modern department of foreign affairs had to wait
until the overthrow of the Ancien Régime. Still, France was earlier than other
European states to initiate a ministry whose sole responsibility was to conduct
foreign policy.

Discuss the Track II Diplomacy.

Track II diplomacy is a term that refers to non-conventional diplomacy

conducted by not only diplomatic crews, but also by influential individuals
(such as artists, authors or celebrities). Track II diplomatic practices usually
your turn 5 take place during mediation efforts, formation of peace missions and campaign
for more universal causes instead of a political agenda of a specific state. In
other words, Track II diplomacy is a non-official effort to facilitate the official
diplomatic context towards a cooperative solution.

83
3
Historical Evolution of Diplomacy: Transition to Permanent Diplomacy

References
Adams, R. and R. Cox. (2011). Diplomacy and Scott, H. (2011). Oxford Handbook of the Ancien
Early Modern Culture. Houndsmills: Palgrave Régime. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Macmillan.
Waltz, K. (1979). Theory of International Relations.
Agha, H., Feldman, S., Khalidi, A., & Schiff, Z. Long Grove, IL: Waveland Press.
(2003). Track-II diplomacy.  Lessons from the
Watson, A. (1992). “Westphalia: an anti-hegemonial
Middle East. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press.
commonwealth of states” The Evolution of
Berridge, G. R. (2010). Diplomacy: Theory and International Society. London: Routledge.
Practice. 4th Edition. New York: Palgrave
Wehberg, H. (1959). “Pacta Sunt Servanda”.
Macmillan.
American Society of International Law. Vol. 53,
Black, J. (2010). A History of Diplomacy. London: Issue 4. pp. 775-786.
Reaktion Books.
Yurdusev, N. (2004). Ottoman Diplomacy:
Chataway, C.J. (1998). “Track II Diplomacy from Conventional or Unconventional? New York:
Track I Perspective.” Negotiation Journal. Vol. Palgrave Macmillan.
14, Issue 3, pp. 269-287.
Cox, B. and D. Philpott. (2003). “Faith-Baed
Diplomacy: An ancient idea newly emergent.” The
Brandywine Review of Faith and International
Affairs. Vol. 1, Issue 2. pp. 31-40.
Gross, L (1993). “The Peace of Westphalia: 1648-
1948.” Selected Essays on International Law
and Organization. New York: Transnational
Publishers Inc.
Hamilton, K. and R. Langhorne. (2011). The
Practice of Diplomacy: Its evolution, theory
and administration. Milton Park, New York:
Routledge.
Homans, C. “Track II diplomacy: a short
history”. Foreign policy, pp. 20.
Jervis, R. (1998). “Realism in the Study of World
Politics.” International Organization. Vol. 52,
issue: 4. pp. 971-991.
Keohan, O. R. (1984). After Hegemony: Cooperation
and Discord in the World Political Economy.
New Jersey: Princeton University Press.
Kissinger, H. (1994). Diplomacy. New York: Simon
& Schuster.
Mattingly, G. (1955). Renaissance Diplomacy.
London: Penguin Books.
Mowat, R. B. (1928). A History of European
Diplomacy: 1451-1789. London: Edward
Arnold & Co.
Neack, L. (2008). The New Foreign Policy: Power
Seeking in a Globalized Era. 2nd Edition. New
York, Toronto: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers.

84
 Chapter 4 Ottoman Diplomacy
and Diplomatic Letters
After completing this chapter you will be able to:
Learning Outcomes

1
Explain the dynamics, instruments and
institutions of ad hoc Ottoman Diplomacy
Explain the dynamics, instruments
2 and institutions of permanent Ottoman
diplomacy

Analyze the institutional and instrumental

3 impact of Ottoman diplomacy on the

Republican diplomacy

Chapter Outline Key Terms

Introduction Ottoman Diplomacy
Ad Hoc Ottoman Diplomacy 1299-1793 Ad Hoc Diplomacy
Permanent Ottoman Diplomacy 1793-1922 Diplomatic Letter
Ottoman Heritage In The Republican Permanent Diplomacy
Diplomacy Translation Room

86

Diplomacy
INTRODUCTION
Image 4.1 The Ottoman Empire (1299-1922)
Diplomacy can be broadly defined as “an
instrument of solving problems between the states
before going into an armed conflict.” However, it’s
not limited to the solution of inter-state problems
in peace. As can be seen in war diplomacy like
conferences and meetings between leaders or
diplomats during WWI and WWII, diplomacy can
be utilized during wars. The origins of diplomacy
date back to ancient Greece, where states did not
have structures, instruments and institutions in
today’s understanding, and Greek city states were
conducting diplomatic relations as early as 5th
century BC.
Modern diplomacy, on the other hand, began
to flourish between Italian city states in the
14th century with the influence of Renaissance
Enlightenment. In addition, Reformation played a
role in the formation of modern diplomacy in the
sense that modern and secular states began to be
formed with the division of religious and state affairs
after the 15th century. Although diplomacy aimed
to solve inter-state problems throughout history,
its instruments and institutions transformed. In
its primitive form, states were sending diplomats
or missionaries temporarily to fulfill specific duties
which was called ad hoc diplomacy. Beginning from
the 14th century, especially in Italy, states began
to establish permanent diplomatic missions in
foreign countries to conduct their foreign relations
and modern diplomacy with its instruments and
institutions began to form.
On the other hand, as one of the long-lasting
empires of world history, the Ottoman Empire
conducted its foreign relations via ad hoc diplomacy
4
until the end of 18th century. It was one of the
dominant powers until the end of 17th century and
carried out its diplomatic relations on the basis of
superior-inferior dichotomy. They carried out their
diplomatic relations on the basis of unilateralism
and there was no room in the Ottoman diplomacy
for relations on the basis of equality and mutuality.
Therefore, they did not adapt the rules of modern
diplomacy until early 1790s because they did not
want to make concessions to “inferior” states.
However, as opposed to the general view that the
Ottomans did not take part in diplomatic relations
due to the sense of superiority up until the 18th
century, they attached great importance to their
diplomatic relations from the beginning. The basic
tools of Ottoman diplomacy were Âmans (mercies)
and capitulations which reflected the unilateral
nature of Ottoman diplomacy and started to be
granted to Venetians as early as the reign of Mehmed
II (Fatih) in the 15th century. In the heydays of
the Ottoman rule, Suleyman I (Kanuni) granted
capitulations to France. Initially, capitulations were
economic, political and legal privileges granted to
foreign states and subjects. However, as time passed
and the empire began to decline, they turned into
burdens on the Ottoman Empire hard to carry.
Ad Hoc Diplomacy
It was the diplomatic system adapted by the states
before the establishment of modern, permanent
diplomacy in the 14th and 15th centuries. States
were sending temporary representatives or
missionaries to each other for specific missions.
For the solution of problems, signing treaties,
declaring their war or peace decisions, etc. rulers
were sending their representatives. After the
formation of modern diplomacy, states began to
adapt professional and permanent institutions
and instruments. The Ottoman Empire used ad
hoc diplomacy until the end of 18th century. The
reign of Selim III, who was closely following the
developments in Europe, was a turning point in
the adaptation of modern diplomacy. Especially
with Mahmud II, the Ottoman Empire began
to adapt the rules and institutions of modern
diplomacy despite some shortcomings.
After the Ottomans had considered their
loss of superiority over the European states, they
87
4
began to follow the developments in Europe and
establish permanent diplomatic missions abroad.
The adaptation of modern diplomacy helped the
Ottoman Empire to survive for more than a century.
More importantly, this adaptation of diplomatic
rules, institutions and instruments had serious
impact on Turkish Republican diplomacy. Thus, in
this section, four questions will be answered:
1. What were the dynamics that shaped Ad
Hoc and Permanent Ottoman diplomacy?
2. What were the institutions and
instruments of Ad Hoc and Permanent
Ottoman diplomacy?
3. To what extent were Ottoman diplomatic
practices successful?
4. What was the impact of Ottoman
diplomacy on the Republican diplomacy?
AD HOC OTTOMAN
DIPLOMACY 1299-1793
Image 4.2 The Expansion of the Ottoman Empire
(1299-1683)
Image 4.3 The Decline of Ottoman Rule (19th and 20th
centuries)
88
Ottoman Diplomacy and Diplomatic Letters
- Dynamics of Ad Hoc Ottoman Diplomacy
(1299-1793)
Image 4.4 Turco-French Relations in the 16th Century
Born as a small beylik (tribe) in the
neighborhood of the Byzantine Empire at the end
of the 13th century, the Ottoman state turned
into one of the greatest empires in world history.
They owe much to their geographical position,
administrative, economic and military systems
for this success. Starting with the 14th century,
the Ottoman state began to expand its territories
eastwards and westwards. In its heydays during
the rule of Suleyman I, they reached the Balkans
and the Mediterranean in the west and the Middle
East and Africa in the east. After the conquest of
Istanbul by Mehmed II, they ended the Byzantine
Empire and began to consolidate their power in the
Anatolian peninsula. The reign of Selim I (Yavuz)
witnessed the control of the majority of lands in
the Middle East and the transfer of Caliphate from
Mamluks to the Ottomans. On the other hand,
during the rule of Suleyman I, the Ottomans
reached the gates of Vienna, but after the death of
Suleyman I, expansion of the Empire lost its pace
and the Empire began to decline.
Although it was an expansionist power with
imperial claims, the Ottoman Empire did not
neglect diplomacy in the period between 15th and
18th centuries and conducted diplomatic relations
with Venice, Genoa, Poland, Russia, Iran, Hungary,
Austria, France, Transylvania, Bogdan, Walachia,
Ragusa, Georgia, Algeria, Tripoli, Morocco
and Marrakech. The sense of superiority and
powerfulness were important factors in Ottomans’
diplomatic relations in its heydays. Some scholars
argue that the empire conducted unilateral

Diplomacy
diplomacy with these states due to the perception
of its dominance over others. In addition, Ottoman
sultans did not care for the support of other states
or learning opinions and policies of them in
certain issues because they thought that it was a
kind of inferiority for them to establish permanent
diplomatic missions in these countries. (Tuncer, 11)
On the other hand, there are different approaches
to the source of this sense of superiority. For some
scholars, it derived from the perception of Islam
as a universal religion and the Ottomans’ duty
of safeguarding and expanding the rule of Islam.
However, it can be argued that the basic motive
of Ottoman sultans was to expand their imperial
power rather than solely expanding territories
under the flag of Islam. Therefore, the Ottoman
rulers did not try to establish bilateral diplomatic
relations and missions in foreign countries until
the 18th century due to their imperial claims and
the sense of superiority rather than religious biases
which impeded their mutual relations on the basis
of equality which is an important principle of
modern diplomacy. (Yurdusev, 20)
Nevertheless, the Ottoman rulers attached
great importance to diplomatic relations despite
unilateral nature of these relations in order to be
a part of world system and power struggle. As
opposed to the general view that the Ottomans
did not have bilateral relations with the European
or Christian states because the Quran orders not
establishing relations with infidels and fighting
against them (Tuncer, 11), Ottoman rulers were
more pragmatic than argued. From the beginning,
they established close relations not only with
Beyliks (tribes) in Anatolia, but also with the
Byzantine Empire. Through inter-tribal or inter-
state marriages, they consolidated their power and
expanded their territories. Therefore, the Ottoman
Empire cannot be regarded as an entity solely ruled
by strict Islamic laws, rather it was also influenced
by customary laws and local customs. Ottoman
Sultans like Mehmed II issued qanunnames (books
of law) in accordance with the Turkish state
tradition empowered rulers to make laws, so the
Ottoman system was not only ruled by religious
laws, but also by customary laws. Such a legal
system provided flexibility and pragmatism to the
policies of the empire. (Yurdusev, 14-15)
Under these circumstances, major instruments
of Ottoman diplomacy until the 18th century
4
were Âmans (mercies) or Ahidnames (treaties) and
capitulations which granted certain privileges and
immunities to non-Muslims states and subjects.
This shows that the Ottoman system was not
solely based on permanent struggle with non-
Muslims, but also seeking for peaceful relations.
For the first time in Ottoman history, Mehmed II
granted capitulations to Venetians in 1454 on the
basis of existing custom which was derived from
the capitulatory agreement between the Byzantine
Empire and Venice. Therefore, it can be argued
that Ottoman rulers respected customary laws and
customs in their diplomatic practices. (Yurdusev,
16) Despite their unilateral nature, the Ottoman
rulers made long-lasting agreements with non-
Muslims. These treaties were renewed regularly so
there was an intention to establish state of peace
except several wars in the Ottoman foreign policy.
For example, Bayezid II signed an agreement with
Pope Innocent VIII. In this treaty, the Sultan and
the Pope agreed on the capturing of his brother
Cem in France rather than sending him to the
foes of the Ottomans in return for the control of
Jerusalem by the French King after it had been
taken by the Ottoman Empire from Mamluks.
(Yurdusev, 16) The deal between the Sultan and the
Pope shows the pragmatism of Ottomans in their
diplomatic relations.
The main objective of the Ottoman rulers
through conducting these pragmatic relations with
foreign states was to be an influential actor in the
European system. The Sultans carried out cautious
diplomatic relations with the European states with
considering balance of power in the European
states system. Thus, Yurdusev argued that this
diplomatic pragmatism triggered, to some extent,
the formation of nation states in Europe. On the
other hand, as the Ottomans became a powerful
empire and a part of this power game, the European
states had to take the Ottomans into consideration
while making their decisions and implementing
their policies, so from time to time they allied with
the Ottoman sultan against each other. Therefore,
the role of the Ottoman Empire in the European
states system facilitated the preservation of status
quo. (Yurdusev, 22) Especially in the 16th and 17th
centuries, the Ottoman rulers supported the English
and Dutch against the Habsburgs, the main enemy
of the Ottomans at that time, because these states
were the forerunners of European resistance against
89
4
Habsburgs’ dominance in the continent. On the
other hand, the Ottoman rulers benefitted from
the religious rivalry in Europe and they supported
Protestants and Calvinists against the Catholics
because this religious split in the continent was an
important tool in the war against Habsburgs. The
Ottoman pressure on the Habsburgs triggered the
spread of Protestantism in Europe. (Yurdusev, 23)
All-in-all, at the apex of its power, the Ottoman
Empire’s relations with the European states were
unilateral due to their superiority over others.
However, the Ottoman rulers did not refrain
from conducting diplomatic relations with the
non-Muslim, European states as a result of their
flexibility and pragmatism. In other words,
Ottoman diplomacy was not heavily influenced
by the strict laws of Islam. More importantly, the
empire was an integral part and important factor
in European states system and diplomacy. In their
calculations, European states or state-like entities
had to consider the Ottoman Empire up until the
18th century.
Nevertheless, the change of dynamics in the
European states system with the end of Dark
Ages after the 15th century with Renaissance
and Reformation movements, on the one hand,
and geographical discoveries, on the other, the
Ottoman Empire faced new challenges and started
to decline. However, the decadence of the Ottoman
power cannot be explained only by external factors.
In other words, after the 16th century, the empire
was not ruled by strong and competent rulers
as Mehmed II, Selim I and Suleyman I. The
administrative system and the palace were full of
problems. In addition, especially after mid-1600s,
the Ottoman economy started to weaken with
the end of territorial expansions, discovery of new
routes and defeats in wars with stronger European
states as a result of the formation of modern states
and armies. Lastly, but more importantly, the
Ottoman military system which was the major
source of Ottoman power began to decline after the
16th century. Janissaries as the crux of the Ottoman
military power lost their discipline and prestige as
well as their adaptation to modern war techniques
and tactics. The defeat at the gates of Vienna in
1683 and Treaty of Karlowitz in 1699, regarded
as the first great territorial loss for the Ottoman
empire, were the two important turning points in
the Ottoman history.
90
Ottoman Diplomacy and Diplomatic Letters
From the 18th century onwards, the power
pendulum began to move from the Ottomans
to the European states and diplomacy became
more important for the Ottomans than warfare.
However, the Ottoman Empire waited for about a
century to adapt the institutions and instruments
of modern diplomacy and to replace their ad hoc
diplomacy.
On the other hand, the delay in the adaptation
of the rules and tools of modern diplomacy does
not mean that Ottoman rulers did not attach
importance to diplomacy and diplomatic practices.
As mentioned above, from the beginning, they
used diplomacy as well as warfare to expand their
empire and consolidate their power. However, as
the power pendulum moved from the Ottomans
to Europeans, the instruments and institutions of
Ottoman diplomacy had to change. In the light of
these dynamics, the instruments and institutions of
ad hoc Ottoman Diplomacy will be discussed, and
then the success of this diplomacy will be evaluated
in the following parts.
- Instruments and Institutions of Ad Hoc
Ottoman Diplomacy
Since the establishment of the Ottoman Empire,
diplomacy was a significant tool for inter-tribal and
inter-state relations. As a part of diplomatic strategy,
Ottoman sultans married daughters of chiefs of
other tribes or monarchs of the Byzantine Empire.
Main objectives of this strategy were developing
friendly relations with other states and expanding
territories through obtaining new lands as dowry.
On the other hand, in the heydays of the Ottoman
Empire, its relations with foreign states were not
based on mutuality, but on unilaterality. This system
was known as the Âman (Mercy) System. Âman was
the privilege or immunity granted by the sultan
to foreigners or non-Muslims. This system which
protected the rights of non-Muslims within the
boundaries of the empire was unilaterally granted by
the Ottomans. (Turan, 26)
In addition, Âman system constituted the basis
of treaties and agreements signed between the
Ottomans and foreign states. In accordance with
the principles of this system, Ottomans signed
treaties and armistice with foreign states for no more
than ten years, so they were temporary agreements
rather than permanent ones due to the ghaza policy

Diplomacy
derived from the Islamic dogma. However, this
does not mean that the empire was in a permanent
war with foreigners or non-Muslims, but it was
used as a leverage to expand its territories and reach
its objectives. On the other hand, these Âmans and
treaties with foreign states were controlled and
approved by Sheikh-ul Islam (the head of religious
affairs). When the Ottoman Empire was powerful,
the basic criteria for these Âmans and treaties was
the interests of the state and its subjects. Âmans and
treaties against the interests of the state were ruled
out by the Sheikh-ul Islam. For example, despite
an agreement between the Ottoman Empire and
Venice on the basis of Âmans, with the fatwa of
Sheikh-ul Islam Ebussuud Efendi, the empire
launched an attack to Cyprus in 1570. This shows
the pragmatism of Ottoman rulers which affected
their foreign relations and diplomacy. (İskit, 147)
On the other hand, Ottoman rulers granted
certain privileges and rights to non-Muslim states
and citizens called capitulations on the basis
of Âman system. Capitulations were political,
economic and legal privileges benefitted by
non-Muslims. As early as the fifteenth century,
Mehmed II granted capitulations to Venice.
However, this policy was a part of power struggle
game. After Venice dominated Levant trade,
Ottoman rulers supported first Genoa and then
Ragusa and Florence which were the main rivals
of Venice. In the sixteenth century, Suleyman
I granted capitulations to France. From the
seventeenth century onwards, the Great Britain,
France, Germany and other European powers
were competing for capitulations in the Ottoman
Empire. At the beginning, capitulations were
used as a tool to influence European politics and
to divide them before uniting against Ottomans.
Moreover, capitulations were utilized to develop
Ottoman economy and economic relations with
foreign states through providing them some
economic privileges like tax exemptions or low
customs and tariffs. Until the Ottoman Empire
began to decline, capitulations were manageable
and profitable. However, as the empire began to
lose its power and superiority over the European
states, it turned into a heavy burden on the empire
which ultimately resulted in the loss of political,
economic and legal independence.
Institutionally, Ottoman sultans were sending
agents or envoys to carry out their specific missions
4
in the ad hoc diplomacy period. Although they did
not establish permanent embassies in foreign states
before the 18th century, the Ottomans allowed
foreign states to establish diplomatic missions in
the empire. Venice was the first state opened an
embassy in Istanbul right after the conquest. It
was followed by Poland (1475), Russia (1497),
France (1525), Austria (1528), the Great Britain
(1583) and the Netherlands (1612). (İskit, 147-
148) However, the Ottoman Empire was not the
only state allowing the establishment of foreign
diplomatic missions inside, but not sending its
own to foreign states. Until the 18th and 19th
centuries, great powers were not willing to establish
diplomatic missions in so-called “inferior” states.
For example, the Papal states were receiving, but
not sending its own ambassadors. Similarly, in the
15th century, the Italian city states sent permanent
ambassadors to the Great Britain, France and Spain,
but the latter did not reciprocate. (Yurdusev, 26)
At the apex of its power, the Ottomans perceived
establishment of foreign diplomatic missions in the
capital of the empire as a sign of their greatness and
superiority. Therefore, diplomatic agents of foreign
states were regarded as guests when they stepped in
Ottoman territories. All their expenses were paid by
the empire. However, when relations with foreign
countries deteriorated, the Âmans were cancelled
and these envoys were even captured and arrested.
French charge d’affaires Ruffin was the last envoy
captured when the Ottoman Empire declared war
against France in 1799 as a result of the Egyptian
problem. When the empire began to adapt the
rules of modern and permanent diplomacy based
on mutuality, the rule of imprisoning agents was
abolished. (İskit, 149)
Permanent Diplomacy
It is the diplomatic system began to be adapted
by the Italian city states in the 14th and 15th
centuries. This system evolved in time and
institutions and instruments of modern diplomacy
took shape. With this system, ministries of foreign
affairs and diplomatic missions were established,
diplomats were recruited and trained. Today,
instruments and institutions of modern diplomacy
are the core elements of inter-state relations.
However, with the acceleration of globalization
process, tools and actors of diplomacy diversified.
91
4
In the ad hoc diplomacy period, agents or
envoys were sent to foreign states for different
purposes. They were assigned by the sultan for
signing peace treaties or trade agreements, peace
proposals, carrying out peace negotiations or
mediating between two states, negotiating the
clauses of treaties, establishing or consolidating
friendly relations, collecting debts of Ottomans,
learning the opinions and policies of the states
about the empire, declaring the change of throne,
giving presents of the sultan, delivering letters
from the sultan, declaring an Ottoman victory,
congratulating a new monarch on behalf of the
sultan, joining coronations of European monarchs,
inviting European monarchs to certain ceremonies
and claiming taxes. (Tuncer,12)
Image 4.5 Yirmi Sekiz Çelebi Mehmet
For these specific purposes, sultans were sending
envoys to foreign countries who were carefully
chosen. In this period, the main criteria for choosing
an envoy was the social status of this person and his
language skills. Sultans were choosing their envoys
from the upper echelons of the society who knew
foreign languages. Language was an important
criterion for the Ottoman envoys, so there were
non-Muslim envoys like Germans and Poles as well
as Greeks and Armenians acted on behalf of the
sultan in foreign states. (Tuncer, 13)
Ottoman envoys were appointed to temporary
positions in the bureaucracy such as Defterdar
(Financial Officer), Nişancı (Head of Kalemiyye),
Beylerbeyi (Governor) and Kazasker (Military
Judge) to promote them in the eyes of rulers of
the receiving state. Extraordinary Envoys were
appointed as Defterdar, Nişancı or Governor
92
Ottoman Diplomacy and Diplomatic Letters
of Mecca, ambassadors were appointed as the
Governor of Rumelia or Anatolia and envoys from
the ulema sent to Iran were appointed as Military
Judge of Anatolia. (Tuncer, 14)
Ottoman envoys were sent to foreign missions
with a big group of attendants, so sometimes they
had a group consisted of thousand people. Ottoman
envoys were delivering letters from the Ottoman
sultan to the monarch and from the grand vizier
to the prime minister of the state they accredited
to. As an Ottoman tradition, they were presenting
gifts to the monarch and notables of the receiving
state. On the other hand, Ottoman envoys were
promoted by precious objects and luxurious clothes
temporarily by the state to leave a strong impression
in the eyes of the rulers and notables of the receiving
state. In addition, Ottoman envoys were attaching
great importance to the rules of diplomatic protocol
during their mission. (Tuncer, 15-16)
Ottoman envoys assigned by the sultan to carry
out specific diplomatic activities were evaluating
their missions in the reports called Sefaretname
(Diplomatic Letters). Diplomatic letters were rich
sources for the Ottoman diplomacy and diplomatic
missions. The number of these diplomatic letters
were about forty and the oldest diplomatic letter
belongs to Kara Mehmet Pasha sent to Vienna
to ameliorate relations between the empire and
Austria after Vasvar Treaty had been signed in 1664.
There were two types of diplomatic letters: special
ones and general ones. Special diplomatic letters
were only about the developments and results
of the mission carried out by the envoy. On the
other hand, in general diplomatic letters, Ottoman
envoys were describing social life, military power,
culture, education, industry and development level
of the receiving country. (İskit, 154) For example,
in his letter, Ottoman envoy Yirmi Sekiz Çelebi
Mehmet sent to France in 1720 described the
journey to France and protocol and ceremonies
organized by French counterparts for the Ottoman
mission in Paris and Versailles in detail. Moreover,
he wrote construction facilities and buildings,
observations about the state and the society such
as foods, traditions, culture, arts, military structure
and scientific developments. (Tuncer, 56-74)
Moreover, İbrahim Pasha sent to Vienna in 1719,
Ahmed Dürri Efendi sent to Iran in 1721, Vasıf
Efendi sent to Spain in 1787 and Ahmet Azmi
Efendi sent to Prussia 1790 wrote their letters in

Diplomacy
a descriptive and detailed manner. In these letters,
the information about the mission and envoy’s
contacts with its counterparts or the monarch of
the receiving state did not exist. Tuncer argues that
for the Ottoman envoys, such information was
secret of the state. (Tuncer, 47-48)
Diplomatic Letters
The reports prepared by the representative of the
Ottoman sultan on behalf of other states. In these
reports, they evaluated their observations and
impressions in the state they were assigned. Rather
than political issues, they were closely observing
scientific, technological and cultural developments
of these countries. Moreover, they were assessing
the protocol prepared for them by the rulers and
diplomats of the country they visited. The number
of Diplomatic Letters in the Ottoman Empire is
about forty.
- Assessment of Ad Hoc Ottoman Diplomacy
To sum up, diplomacy was as crucial as warfare
for the Ottomans from the beginning. At the
apex of its power, Ottoman rulers conducted
unilateral diplomacy because bilateral diplomacy
needed mutuality, but the Ottomans had a sense
of superiority and there was no room for mutuality
until the 19th century. Despite the impact of
Islam in the formulation and implementation of
foreign relations and diplomacy to the limited
extent, the Ottoman Empire cannot be regarded
as an orthodox Islamic state. Customary laws or
qanunnames were constituting a significant part
of Ottoman administration system. Therefore, the
empire was a crucial part of the balance of power
strategy and they did not hesitate to align with non-
Muslim states as a part of their pragmatic strategy.
As a politically, economically and militarily
strong state especially until the late 18th century,
they granted Âmans or capitulations to the states
they perceived inferior to the empire as diplomatic
instruments. On the other hand, Ottoman rulers
did not need to open embassies in return for the
embassies established by European states in the
Ottoman capital due to the sense of superiority
4
and self-sufficiency. However, this policy was not
unique to the Ottomans and in this period all great
powers were not
willing to establish permanent diplomatic
missions in weaker states.
As the empire began to decline after the 17th
century, especially capitulations, which were certain
political, economic and legal rights and privileges
granted to foreigners, turned into trouble and
ultimately resulted in the loss of sovereignty and
independence. There were several reasons of the
decline of the Ottoman Empire after the 17th century.
First of all, Ottoman rulers were not eligible like
Mehmed II, Selim I and Suleyman I and they lost the
control in the central authority. Secondly, as a result of
the developments in Europe such as Renaissance and
Reformation, modern and secular states and armies
began to form, so there was no power vacuum in the
continent that can be filled by the Ottomans. On
the contrary, the empire lost its dynamism in science
and technology as well as military structure. Thirdly,
with the geographical discoveries and the change of
trade routes, the Ottomans lost their control and
hegemony in the economic realm. In addition, due
to defeats in wars and territorial losses, they lost the
majority of their revenues.
As the power pendulum moved from the
Ottoman Empire to Europe, diplomacy became
more important than warfare. However, the
Ottoman rulers waited until the end of 18th
century to adapt the instruments and institutions
of modern diplomacy. They began to replace their
unilateral, ad hoc diplomacy with bilateral and
permanent diplomacy. Temporary diplomatic
missions and envoys were replaced by permanent
missions and ambassadors. Consequently,
diplomacy was an integral part of Ottoman rule,
but its dynamics, instruments and institutions
evolved throughout history. Permanent Ottoman
diplomacy was shaped by different dynamics and
consisted new instruments and institutions.
1
Discuss the dynamics,
instruments and institutions of
ad hoc Ottoman diplomacy
93
4
PERMANENT OTTOMAN
DIPLOMACY 1793-1922
The Ottoman Empire had to adapt the
instruments and institutions of modern diplomacy
at the end of the 18th century. Dynamics shaping
Ottoman diplomacy were totally different from
ad hoc period up until 1790s and instruments
and institutions of Ottoman diplomacy would
compatible with these dynamics.
- Dynamics of Permanent Ottoman
Diplomacy (1793-1922)
The French Revolution (1789) and the
Industrial Revolution (started in the late 18th
century) had serious impact on the Ottoman
Empire. Ideas of nationalism, nation-state, equality,
fraternity, liberty and justice born out of the
French Revolution accelerated the collapse of the
empire as other multi-ethnic and multi-religious
empires. Starting from the Balkans, all minorities
in the Ottoman Empire came up with the demands
for independence or at least equality among
communities. Ottoman millet (community) system
prevented them from being treated as equals. In this
process, Ottoman subjects in the Balkans, started
with Serbs in 1804 and Greeks in 1821, revolted
against the Ottoman Empire. In order to save the
empire from disintegrating and prevent foreign
countries, like Russia claiming protectorate over the
Slavs in the Balkans, from intervening in domestic
policies, the Ottoman rulers had to take some
serious measures. In 1839 Tanzimat Edict and in
1856 Islahat (Reform) Edict were declared to grant
some rights and privileges to the foreign subjects of
the Empire. The main actors of this process were
the Ottoman diplomats Mustafa Reşid Pasha, Ali
Pasha and Fuad Pasha who were formulating and
implementing Ottoman foreign policy in this
period. These diplomats believed that the empire
could be saved through West-oriented reforms and
modernization. Ottoman modernization process
started with the military as early as Selim III and he
decided to establish permanent embassies in Europe
because Selim III was aware that the dependence
of the Ottomans to European states in political,
economic and military realms were increasing.
More importantly, he wanted to integrate the
empire to the European states system again through
modernization and Westernization.
94
Ottoman Diplomacy and Diplomatic Letters
Therefore, the first Ottoman Embassy was
established in London in 1793 and this was a
turning point in Ottoman diplomacy. Being aware
of the loss of dominance and superiority over
the European powers, which had become more
powerful starting with colonization and continued
with the French Revolution and the Industrial
Revolution, Ottoman rulers used all instruments
and institutions of diplomacy. The Industrial
Revolution also played a serious role in the erosion
of Ottoman power. With the accumulation
of capital and boom in economic production,
Western states hegemonized the international
relations. On the contrary, the Ottoman Empire
could not keep up pace with these developments
and began to collapse due to the lack of initiative to
adapt new rules and developments in technology,
science, military and economy.
The global conjuncture and strong state,
military and economic structures had allowed the
Ottomans to turn into an empire from a small beylik
in the 15th and 16th centuries while the decline
in all these dynamics and changes in the global
conjuncture started especially in the 17th and 18th
centuries. More importantly, capitulations granted
by the Ottomans to foreign countries as early as
the 15th century turned into a burden that could
not be carried by the empire as the power balance
shifted from the empire to European states. Under
these circumstances, diplomacy became a necessary
tool to survive or at least delay the collapse of the
empire. Ottomans became a part of Concert of
Europe system, which had been established in
Vienna Congress of 1815 after Napoleonic Wars,
after the Crimea War against Russia between 1853
and 1856. In this war, the Great Britain and France
allied with the Ottomans against Russians. From
then on, the Ottoman Empire became a part of
this balance of power system because both the
Ottomans and the European States understood
that the empire could not survive alone. As a
result of this changing alliances, sometimes with
the Great Britain and France against Russia and
sometimes with Germany, especially during
the reign of Abdulhamid II against the Great
Britain and France, the Ottomans survived for
more decades. Nevertheless, the inability of
the Ottomans to protect their sovereignty and
territorial integrity resulted in their perception as
the Sick Man of Europe in the eyes of European
 4
Diplomacy

powers that connoted the Eastern Question. Sultan Vahdettin and Istanbul government
Ottoman rulers played this balance of power game endeavored to save the empire through diplomacy
through diplomacy and this process accelerated the and negotiations with the Allies.
modernization and professionalization of Ottoman However, with the success of National Struggle
diplomacy. Ottoman diplomats tried to establish and Ankara government, Istanbul government
friendly and close relations with the European states and the sultan lost their prestige and after
and they granted more privileges to Europeans in Ankara government was invited by the Allies to
order to solve their problems in a peaceful way due Lausanne for peace negotiations together with
to the weakness and backwardness of their army Istanbul government, the dynasty was abolished
to protect their territorial integrity and sovereignty. on November 1, 1922 and the Ottoman Empire
Until the reign of Abdulhamid II (1876-1909) came to an end. In order to fill this power vacuum,
the major ally of the Ottoman Empire was the Republican regime was established on October 29,
Great Britain. The latter was the most powerful 1923. The Republican regime was a rupture from
state of the time. With the reign of Abdulhamid the Ottoman Empire, but it inherited some feature
II, Ottomans established closer relations with of the latter and diplomacy can be regarded as one
Germany as the politically and militarily rising of these commonalities, to some extent, between
power of continental Europe. Turco-German the empire and the republic.
alliance was a bilateral relationship through which
both sides were trying to maximize their interests
- Instruments and Institutions of Permanent
and these relations continued to develop during
Ottoman Diplomacy
Young Turks (1908-1918). According to the
colonizers of the West like the Great Britain and
France, the solution of the Eastern Question was
the disintegration of the Ottoman Empire at the
beginning of the 20th century because the clouds
of war were seen in the horizon. For the European
states, after such a war, the Ottoman Empire
should not be controlled by any of these powers
alone. During WWI (1914-1918) the Ottoman
Empire allied with Germany. With a secret treaty
signed between two states on the eve of WWI, the
Ottoman Empire declared war against the Allies
and became a part of Entente powers. Turco-
German alliance during WWI cannot be explained
only by the admiration of some Ottoman statesmen
for German power and military structure. First Image 4.6 First Ottoman Ambassador – Yusuf Agah
Efendi
of all, the empire did not have an option except
Germany because the diplomatic efforts before
the war in London and Paris did not bear fruit. As a result of the change of power balance with
Therefore, Ottomans and Germans had to form Europe, Ottoman approach to diplomacy faced
an alliance and all these processes were carried out new challenges after the 18th century. Political,
through diplomatic channels. economic and military development of European
states accelerated as a result of the formation of
At the end of WWI, the Ottoman Empire
modern, secular states after Westphalia Treaty
had to seek an armistice and with the Mudros
in 1648. French and Industrial Revolutions
Armistice signed on October 30, 1918 and Sevres
seriously influenced this development process. As
Peace Treaty signed on July 10, 1920 territories
the European powers became dominant in world
of the empire were divided and invaded by the
politics, the Ottoman Empire lost its comparative
Allies. After the invasion of the country, National
advantage experienced in the 15th and 16th
Movement appeared and the process of National
centuries. Under these circumstances there was no
Struggle started. Throughout the National Struggle,

95
4
room for unilateral diplomacy and Âman system
that Ottoman rulers granted certain rights and
privileges to the “inferior” states. After the 18th
century, European states began to control Ottoman
politics, economy and legal system. For example,
Hünkar İskelesi Treaty (1833) with Russia and
Baltalimanı Treaty with the Great Britain (1838)
granted certain capitulations to these states to the
disadvantage of the Ottoman Empire. However,
Ottoman rulers tried to use these capitulations as
a part of their balance of power strategy after the
Crimea War. As time passed, capitulations were
abused by the European powers to consolidate
their power and control over the Ottomans. Young
Turks unilaterally abolished capitulations in 1914
during WWI, but after Mudros Armistice they
began to be implemented. During the Lausanne
Conference, capitulations were one of the harshly
debated issues, but ultimately they were abolished
in 1923. All-in-all, Âman System and capitulations
were the basic instruments of Ottoman diplomacy
until the Ottoman rulers began to implement the
rules and instruments of modern diplomacy.
Ottoman diplomacy had to adapt the rules
and instruments of modern diplomacy flourished
and consolidated in Europe from the 15th century
onwards. The empire became a part of bilateral
diplomacy on the basis of mutuality and equality,
on the one hand, and multilateral diplomacy, on the
other. As a result of the balance of power strategy
established in Europe with the Vienna Congress,
multilateral diplomacy was the major diplomatic
instrument in the 19th century. With the decline
of Ottoman power in this period and the need to
make alliances with the European powers in order
to survive, Ottoman rulers did not hesitate to join
multilateral conferences to solve their problems in
the international arena. Paris Treaty was signed in
1856 after the Crimea War and it was stated that
sovereignty and territorial integrity of the Ottoman
Empire would be protected by European powers
especially the Great Britain and France. Therefore,
particularly against the Russian threat, these two
powers supported the Ottoman Empire. For
example, after the Turco-Russian War in 1877-78,
the Ottoman Empire and Russia signed the treaty
of Ayastefanos (Saint Stefano), but Berlin Congress
was convened in 1878 upon the invitation of
German Chancellor Otto von Bismarck, as the
leader of the rising power in continental Europe,
96
Ottoman Diplomacy and Diplomatic Letters
and heavy clauses of this treaty were changed to the
advantage of the Ottoman Empire.
In this period, the main motive of the European
powers was to prevent the hegemony and control
of any one of them over the empire. However,
as time passed, the Ottoman empire began to be
considered as the Sick Man of Europe and these
powers gave up their strategy of protecting the unity
of the Ottoman Empire, and adapted the strategy of
sharing the empire among them. On the other hand,
the Ottoman rulers utilized the strategy of finding
allies against the enemies to the last minute. Before
WWI, they sought for establishing alliances with the
European powers, particularly the Great Britain and
France, but when their proposals for alliance were
rejected by these powers due their new strategy of
dividing the empire among them, they had to choose
the alliance with Germany as the result of their closer
relations started with the reign of Abdulhamid II.
Image 4.7 Ottoman Diplomats – Treaty of Saint
Stefano (Ayastefanos) (1878)
Consequently, the Ottoman Empire adapted
the rules and instruments of modern diplomacy
starting from the 19th century. In the same vein,
they modernized the instruments and institutions
of their diplomatic structure. Modernization
and professionalization of Ottoman diplomacy
started with Selim III, who was a visionary sultan
seeking for modernization and Westernization of
Ottoman system in all aspects such as the military,
bureaucracy and economy. Therefore, for Selim
III, it was necessary for the Ottoman Empire
to establish permanent diplomatic missions in
European capitals because the sultan was aware
that in comparison to the European state system,
 4
Diplomacy

the Ottoman system was backward. Therefore, Greek uprisings during the reign of Mahmud II,
modernization of the Ottoman system was crucial training Turkish-Muslim translators and diplomats
for the survival of the empire. became a priority for the Ottomans. To this end,
The first Ottoman embassy was established Tercüme Odası (Translation Room) was established
in London in 1793 and Yusuf Agah Efendi in 1821 and Muslim-Turkish translators began
was appointed as the first permanent Ottoman to be trained in this institution and they replaced
ambassador. Despite close relations with France, Dragomans who were the translators during the ad
the first embassy was not opened in Paris because hoc period.
French Revolution was shaking French dynastic
rule from in its roots, so the Ottoman sultan
Dragoman
was cautious for the recognition of the newly
Dragomans were responsible for the
established republican regime. (Tuncer, 19) As
translation of reports, documents and
time passed, permanent diplomatic missions were
treaties in the Ottoman Empire especially
established in European capitals such as Paris
in the classical age. They were integral
and Vienna. However, the sultan did not send a
parts of the Ottoman diplomacy from the
permanent mission to Saint Petersburg initially
beginning. Dragomans were selected among
because relations with Russia were not friendly
the people who knew foreign languages.
at that time. After the Crimea War (1853-1856),
After the Ottoman Empire had begun to
permanent embassy was established in the Russian
modernize and professionalize its diplomacy,
capital. (İskit, 157)
translators in the Translation Room and
Ottoman ambassadors were chosen among the Ministry of Foreign Affairs replaced
families acting in the bureaucracy. Most of them Dragomans.
were coming from the higher echelons of the
society. There were some families from which two or
more ambassadors were appointed. First Ottoman
ambassadors were self-trained people due to the lack
Translation Room
of a recruitment system for diplomatic missions.
It was the office in the Ottoman diplomatic
They learnt foreign languages and the practice of
system where translation of reports, treaties
diplomacy by themselves during their missions
and documents were carried out. Translation
abroad. Some of these ambassadors graduated
Room was a significant part of the Ottoman
from schools in Istanbul such as Soğukçeşme Askeri
diplomacy because officials who knew
Rüşdiyesi (Military High School), Mahreç-i Aklam
foreign languages were working in this
and Bab-ı Âli Lisan Mektebi (Language School). On
office. Initially, German, Polish, Greek and
the other hand, with the establishment of Mektebi
Armenian translators were working in the
Sultani (Palace School) and Mülkiye (Civil Service
office, whereas after Mahmud II, the empire
School), late Ottoman ambassadors graduated
favored Turkish people in this institution.
from these schools. (İskit, 164-165)
More importantly, minorities were significant
actors in the Ottoman diplomacy because of their
Missions of the Ottoman ambassadors in the
language skills. Greek and Armenian minorities
permanent diplomacy period were similar to the ad
were recruited as translators and also they were
hoc period. Ottoman ambassadors were responsible
employed in foreign missions as charge d’affaires
for observing, following and reporting the
and envoys. For example, 3 out of 16 envoys sent
developments in the states that they were accredited
to London, 2 out of 7 envoys sent to Washington,
to. In addition, they were closely following the
2 out of 15 envoys sent to Berlin and 4 out of 10
press and translating and sending the news to the
envoys sent to Rome were Greeks. Greek Musurus
capital regularly. Ottoman ambassadors were the
Pasha (1807-1891) was appointed as the Ottoman
main element of the communication between
ambassador in London and he kept his office for
the empire and the receiving state. They were
36 years. (Tuncer, 29) However, with Serbian and
reporting the events and the developments as well

97
4
as the policies of the receiving state. Furthermore,
they were the intermediaries between two states
during peace negotiations and signing of peace
treaties. More importantly, Ottoman ambassadors
were observing and analyzing social, economic
and military structure of the receiving state as
well as technological and scientific developments.
(Tuncer, 26-28) All-in-all, missions of Ottoman
ambassadors played an important role in the
modernization and Westernization of the empire
in this period. Their observations and analyses
inspired the rulers to make necessary changes and
reforms.
Diplomatic protocol was an important element
of permanent Ottoman diplomacy. Permanent
ambassadors were leaving the Ottoman capital
with a letter written by the sultan to the monarch
of the receiving state and their mission started after
they had delivered this letter. Similarly, when their
missions ended, they delivered a letter from the
monarch of the receiving state to the sultan. In these
letters, monarchs were evaluating ambassador’s
mission and his relations with their counterparts
or citizens in a detailed manner. (Tuncer, 21-22)
Until the declaration of the II. Constitutional
Monarchy in 1908, Muslim diplomats could not
take their wives with them to their mission and this
rule caused some family problems. Some of these
diplomats married foreigners during their mission.
The ban of taking their wives to their mission
was lifted with the II. Constitutional Monarchy
and wives accompanied their husbands in the
diplomatic protocol. (İskit, 165)
On the other hand, expenses of permanent
ambassadors were paid by the state and they were
paid regular salaries. Their salaries were determined
in accordance with the level of their service in the
bureaucracy. Therefore, there was a gap between
salaries of ambassadors. (Tuncer, 20-21)
In the late Ottoman period, modernization
of diplomatic service was followed by the
professionalization of ministry of foreign affairs.
Before the 19th century, Reis-ül Küttap (Head of
Secretaries) was mainly responsible for diplomatic
correspondence. This body was established during
the reign of Suleyman I and working subject to the
Grand Vizier. The mission of Reis-ül Küttap in the
state apparatus was to control duties of secretaries
in the diplomatic correspondence. As time passed,
98
Ottoman Diplomacy and Diplomatic Letters
Grand Vizier delegated the execution of foreign
and political relations to Reis-ül Küttaps although
they were not acting independently as a minister
of foreign affairs.
Reis-ül Küttap
The head of secretaries in the Ottoman
diplomatic system. Initially, they were
responsible for conducting Ottoman
diplomatic correspondence until the end of
18th century. After the modernization and
professionalization of Ottoman diplomacy
with Selim III, they began to act as the
minister of foreign affairs. However, these
people were not professional diplomats
eligible for conducting diplomatic relations
due to the lack of their knowledge about
diplomatic rules and instruments. After
Mahmud II had established the ministry of
foreign affairs and started to modernize the
Translation Room, they were replaced by
professional diplomats.
After the 18th century, Ottoman diplomacy
began to professionalize and the scope of Reis-
ül Küttap’s missions expanded. Although they
were the main people responsible for diplomatic
relations, Reis-ül Küttaps were not eligible for
this position due to the lack of language skills
and diplomatic protocol. Therefore, Mahmud
II established Hariciye Nezareti (Minister of
Foreign Affairs) in 1836 as the first step of the
establishment of a modern and professional body
for conducting foreign relations. (Tuncer, 30-31) It
can be regarded as the beginning of today’s Turkish
Ministry of Foreign Affairs.
Image 4.8 Ottoman Diplomats – Berlin Congress
(1878)

Diplomacy
After Abdulmecit (1839-1861) had come to
throne, power was shifted from the palace to the
Bab-ı Âli (government) due to the dominance of
the men of Tanzimat: Mustafa Reşid Pasha, Âli
Pasha and Fuad Pasha. They were professional
diplomats and ardent supporters of modernization
and Westernization. They were following the
developments in the West and they ruled the state
as ambassadors, ministers of foreign affairs and
Grand Viziers successively for thirty years. In this
period, extensive reforms were carried out ranging
from political and economic to military and legal
structure of the Ottoman Empire. These statesmen
had closer relations with European powers because
of their service to the state as diplomats, ministers
and Grand Viziers, so they played an important
role for the establishment of close relations with
European powers as well as the professionalization
and modernization of diplomatic institutions
in the Ottoman Empire. The system established
and institutions created in the early 19th century
remained as the instruments and institutions of
permanent Ottoman diplomacy until the collapse
of the empire.
- Assessment of Permanent Ottoman
Diplomacy
Modernization and Westernization of the
Ottoman Empire coincided with the transition
from ad hoc diplomacy to permanent diplomacy.
The French Revolution had serious impact on
the empire like all other multi-ethnic and multi-
religious empires in this period. The rise of national
sentiments and, as a result, nationalist revolts
threatened territorial integrity of the Ottoman
Empire. In addition, erosion of central authority,
collapse of the economy, decline in the military
power caused the loss of superiority over non-
Muslim or European powers beginning from
the 17th century. Therefore, the empire became
vulnerable to outside effects and had to find
remedies to all these problems. More importantly,
the rules, instruments and institutions of Ottoman
diplomacy after the 18th century needed to be
totally different from those of ad hoc period because
the empire was not in a hegemonic position to
dictate its bilateral diplomacy and its rules and
interests. As a result, modernization and adaptation
process started with Selim III and first permanent
embassies began to be established in European
capitals. Westernization of diplomacy brought the
4
professionalization of diplomatic missions and
diplomats. Diplomats of the permanent diplomacy
period were learning foreign languages, observing
and following the developments in Europe which
was the center of attraction at that time. At the
beginning, Greeks and Armenians were recruited
in the Translation Room and Ministry of Foreign
Affairs, but with the reign of Mahmud II, Muslim
and Turkish translators and diplomats began to
be trained. In return, these diplomats catalyzed
Western style reforms and developments especially
during the Tanzimat period in different spheres.
With the adaptation of modern diplomacy, the
Ottoman Empire became a part of Concert of
Europe, which had been established with the
Vienna Treaty after Napoleonic wars in 1815, with
Paris Treaty in 1856 after the Crimea War. The
Crimea War showed the inability of the Ottoman
Empire to protect its sovereignty and territorial
integrity without the support of European powers.
The inability of the Ottoman Empire to stand alone
in the international arena turned into the Eastern
Question at the end of the 19th century. However,
the Concert of Europe system based on balance of
power strategy delayed the collapse of the Ottoman
Empire and it survived until the end of WWI.
With the modernization of diplomatic
instruments and institutions, the Ottoman Empire
benefitted from the rivalry among European
powers. Sometimes it made alliances with the Great
Britain and France against Russia like the Crimea
War or with Germany against the other European
powers like WWI. During the Tanzimat era, allies
of the empire were the Great Britain and France,
but with the reign of Abdulhamid II, Germany
became the major ally. Despite the alliances
between the Ottoman Empire and these states,
they were all seeking to maximize their political,
economic and military interests. In this vein, the
scope of capitulations was extended and certain
privileges were granted to all these European
powers. However, the global conjuncture and the
situation of the empire necessitated to do so. The
success of these strategies is open to debate, but it is
obvious that as a result of these strategies the empire
survived for about a century. More importantly,
modernization and Westernization efforts in the
Ottoman Empire besides the professionalization of
diplomacy heavily influenced the Turkish Republic
following the war of independence regarding the
99
4
dynamics and mentality shaped Turkish foreign
policy, instruments and institutions of Turkish
diplomacy.
2 German and Italian revisionism and expansionism
Discuss the dynamics,
instruments and institutions of
permanent Ottoman
diplomacy
OTTOMAN HERITAGE IN THE
REPUBLICAN DIPLOMACY
After the collapse of the Ottoman Empire, the
Turkish Republic was established by Mustafa Kemal
Atatürk. When the National Struggle ended, Turkey
was a politically, economically, militarily and socially
backward country. Starting from the early 1920s,
Atatürk carried out reforms in various areas. From
the political system to the alphabet, the impact
of reforms dispersed throughout the country. The
major goal was to consolidate the newly established
nation state and cut the ties with the Ottoman
Empire to the extent possible. In many areas, there
were influential reforms that shook the country
and society from its roots. However, with regard
to foreign policy and diplomacy, there are certain
commonalities between the Ottoman Empire and
the Turkish Republic.
First of all, the Turkish Republic was established
on the same geography despite shrinkage of
Ottoman territories after the 18th century. The
Straits and geographical location, as a bridge
between Europe and Asia, of the Turkish Republic
can be considered as important elements of its
foreign policy. On the one hand, these elements
enable Turkey, as a medium-sized power as opposed
to the Ottoman Empire claiming global superiority,
to carry out negotiations in order to maximize its
interests to the extent possible, but, on the other
hand, as a state encircled by regions like the Balkans
and the Middle East full of problems forces it to
conduct a cautious foreign policy and diplomacy.
Secondly, the mindset of the Republican rulers
and diplomats have been shaped by the Ottoman
balance of power strategy especially after the 19th
100
Ottoman Diplomacy and Diplomatic Letters
century. Both its founders Atatürk and İnönü and
their successors tried hard to increase the number
of friends and decrease the number of enemies.
Especially during WWII and the Cold War,
Turkey tried to establish alliances with Western
powers like the Great Britain and France against
during WWII and the United States against the
Soviet claims and threat during the Cold War. The
global conjuncture and Turkey’s own interests like
protection of territorial integrity and sovereignty,
economic development and military modernization
necessitated to do so. This also shows the Western-
oriented foreign policy and diplomacy since the
beginning of modernization and Westernization
efforts in the Ottoman Empire by Selim III.
Thirdly, rulers of the Turkish Republic similar
to the Ottoman sultans and the statesmen
especially during the decline and collapse periods
have refrained from wars and they have attached
great importance to the solution of problems
through diplomacy. In this vein, Turkey became
a member of League of Nations (LoN) in 1932
upon its invitation and joined the United Nations
(UN) after WWII and NATO in 1952. Protection
of regional and global status quo as well as Turkey’s
sovereignty and territorial integrity have been
the priorities of Turkish statesmen. In addition,
when Turkish foreign policy in the Republican
era is considered, the dominance of leaders in the
formulation of foreign policy can be clearly seen.
Starting from Atatürk, dominant figures like İsmet
İnönü, Adnan Menderes, Süleyman Demirel,
Bülent Ecevit, Turgut Özal and Recep Tayyip
Erdoğan have become influential figures in Turkish
foreign policy.
Institutionally, the roots of Turkish Ministry
of Foreign Affairs date back to the Translation
Room established in 1821 by Mahmud II. In
time, Hariciye Nezareti (Foreign Ministry) was
established and professional diplomats began to
be trained. When the Republican regime was
established, rulers of the state faced the problem
of shortage of well-trained diplomats. Starting with
the early years of the republic, professionalization of
the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and diplomats have
been prioritized by the state. During Atatürk’s and
İnönü’s presidencies, they preferred working with
their close friends like Yusuf Kemal Tengirşenk,
Tevfik Rüştü Aras, Rauf Orbay, Ali Fuad Cebesoy,
 4
Diplomacy

Fethi Okyar, Ruşen Eşref Ünaydın, Yusuf Hikmet Bayur, Yakup Kadri Karaosmanoğlu, Münir Ertegün
and Hüsrev Gerede most of whom were not professional diplomats, but soldiers or intellectuals who knew
several languages and able to represent the state in foreign countries. (İskit, 227) Conducting diplomacy
through reliable and eligible people was a practice of Ottoman
sultans and rulers not only in the ad hoc diplomacy period, but also
in permanent diplomacy period. As time passed and the ministry of
foreign affairs professionalized and the number of trained diplomats 3
and personnel increased, Turkish diplomacy was conducted by What is the instrumental
professionals.
and institutional heritage of
All-in-all, when the dynamics and institutions of Turkish foreign
Ottoman diplomacy in the
policy and diplomacy are considered, the heritage of Ottoman
diplomacy can be clearly seen. In terms of mindset, objectives, Republican diplomacy?
instruments and institutions, Turkish diplomacy can be regarded as a
continuation of Ottoman diplomacy.

101
4
Ottoman Diplomacy and Diplomatic Letters

LO 1 Explaining the dynamics, instruments and

institutions of ad hoc Ottoman Diplomacy

The sense of superiority and powerfulness were important factors in Ottomans’ diplomatic relations in
this period. Some scholars argue that the empire conducted unilateral diplomacy with these states due to
the perception of their dominance over others. In addition, Ottoman sultans did not care for the support
of other states or learning opinions and policies of them in certain issues. Therefore, it was a kind of
inferiority for the Ottomans to establish permanent diplomatic missions in foreign countries. On the
other hand, there are different approaches to the source of this sense of superiority. For some scholars, it
derived from the perception of Islam as a universal religion and the Ottomans’ duty of safeguarding and
Summary

expanding the rule of Islam. However, it can be argued that the basic motive of Ottoman sultans was to
expand their imperial power rather than solely expanding territories under the flag of Islam. Therefore,
the Ottoman rulers did not try to establish bilateral diplomatic relations and missions in foreign countries
until the 18th century due to their imperial claims and the sense of superiority which might impede their
mutual relations on the basis of equality which is an important principle of modern diplomacy. Major
instruments of Ottoman diplomacy until the 18th century were Âmans (mercies) or Ahidnames (treaties)
and capitulations which granted certain privileges and immunities to non-Muslims subjects and states.
This shows that the Ottoman system was not solely based on permanent struggle with non-Muslims, but
seeking for peaceful relations. For the first time in Ottoman history, Mehmed II granted capitulations
to Venetians in 1454 on the basis of existing custom which was derived from the capitulatory agreement
between the Byzantine Empire and Venice. Therefore, it can be argued that Ottoman rulers respected
customary laws and customs in their diplomatic practices. Despite their unilateral nature, the Ottoman
rulers made long-lasting agreements with non-Muslims. These treaties were renewed regularly so there
was an intention to establish state of peace except several wars in the Ottoman foreign policy. In the ad
hoc diplomacy period based on unilaterality, Ottoman sultans were sending agents or envoys to carry out
their temporary missions. Although they did not establish permanent embassies in foreign states before
the 18th century, they allowed foreign states to open diplomatic missions in the empire.

LO 2 Explaining the dynamics, instruments and

institutions of permanent Ottoman diplomacy

The global conjuncture and strong state, military and economic structures allowed the Ottomans to turn
into an empire from a small beylik in the 15th and 16th centuries while the decline in all these dynamics
and changes in the global conjuncture started especially in the 17th and 18th centuries. Capitulations
granted by the Ottomans to foreign countries as early as the 15th century turned into a burden that
could not be carried by the empire as the power balance shifted from the empire to European states.
Under these circumstances, diplomacy became a necessary tool to survive or at least delay the collapse
of the empire. Ottomans became a part of Concert of Europe system, which had been established in
Vienna Congress of 1815 after Napoleonic Wars, after the Crimea War against the Russian Empire
between 1853 and 1856. Modernization and professionalization of Ottoman diplomacy started with
Selim III, who was a visionary sultan seeking for modernization and Westernization of Ottoman system
in all aspects such as the military, bureaucracy and economy. Therefore, for Selim III, it was necessary
for the Ottoman Empire to establish permanent diplomatic missions in European capitals because the
sultan was aware that in comparison to the European state system, the Ottoman system was backward.
Therefore, modernization of the Ottoman system was crucial for the survival of the empire. The first
Ottoman embassy was established in London in 1793 and Yusuf Agah Efendi was appointed as the first
permanent Ottoman ambassador. Despite close relations with France, the first embassy was not opened
in Paris because French Revolution was shaking French dynastic rule from its roots, so the Ottoman
sultan was cautious for the recognition of the newly established republican regime. As time passed,
permanent diplomatic missions were established in European capitals like Paris and Vienna. However,
the sultan did not send a permanent mission to Saint Petersburg initially because relations with Russia
were not friendly at that time. After the Crimea War (1853-1856), permanent embassy was established
in the Russian capital.

102
 4
Diplomacy

LO 3 Analyzing the institutional and instrumental impact

of Ottoman diplomacy on the Republican diplomacy

First of all, the Turkish Republic was established on the same geography despite shrinkage of Ottoman
territories after the 18th century. The Straits and geographical location, as a bridge between Europe and
Asia, of the Turkish Republic can be considered as important elements of its foreign policy. Secondly,
the mindset of the Republican rulers and diplomats have been shaped by the Ottoman balance of power
strategy especially after the 19th century. Both its founders Atatürk and İnönü and their successors tried

Summary
hard to increase the number of friends and decrease the number of enemies. Thirdly, rulers of the Turkish
Republic similar to the Ottoman sultans and the statesmen especially during the decline and collapse
periods have refrained from wars and they have attached great importance to the solution of problems
through diplomacy. Institutionally, the roots of Turkish Ministry of Foreign Affairs date back to the
Translation Room established in 1821 by Mahmud II. In time, Hariciye Nezareti (Foreign Ministry) was
established and professional diplomats began to be trained. When the Republican regime was established,
rulers of the state faced the problem of shortage of well-trained diplomats. Starting with the early years of
the republic, professionalization of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and diplomats have been prioritized
by the state.

103
4
Ottoman Diplomacy and Diplomatic Letters

1 Where did permanent diplomacy begin to

6 Who was the first Ottoman sultan opened
form? permanent embassies?
a. France a. Suleyman I
Test Yourself

b. England b. Mehmed II
c. Germany c. Mahmud II
d. Italy d. Abdulhamid II
e. Spain e. Selim III

7 What was the first state opened an embassy

2 What was the first state the Ottoman Empire in the capital of the Ottoman Empire?
granted capitulations?
a. England
a. France b. Genova
b. Spain c. France
c. Portugal d. Venice
d. Venice e. The Netherlands
e. Genova
8 What was the name of the system established
3 When did the Ottoman Empire begin in Europe after Napoleonic Wars in the early 19th
to adapt the rules and institutions of modern century?
diplomacy?
a. Council of Europe
a. 15th century b. Balance of Europe
b. 16th century c. League of Nations
c. 17th century d. Holy League
d. 18th century e. Concert of Europe
e. 19th century
9 With which event did the Ottoman Empire
4
Where was the first Ottoman permanent become a part of European states’ system?
embassy opened?
a. Berlin Congress
a. France b. Treaty of Karlowitz
b. England c. Treaty of Saint Stefano
c. Germany d. Crimea War
d. Spain e. WWI
e. The Netherlands

5 Who was the first permanent ambassador of

10 What was the name of the treaty that modern
the Ottoman Empire? states began to form?

a. Yirmi Sekiz Çelebi Mehmet a. Campo Formio Treaty

b. Yusuf Agah Efendi b. Paris Treaty
c. Mustafa Reşid Pasha c. London Treaty
d. Fuad Pasha d. Saint Stefano Treaty
e. Ali Pasha e. Westphalia Treaty

104
 4
Diplomacy

If your answer is incorrect, review

1. d If your answer is incorrect, review 6. e
“Dynamics of Permanent Ottoman
“Introduction”
Diplomacy”

If your answer is incorrect, review

2. d If your answer is incorrect, review 7. d
“Institutions of Ad Hoc Ottoman

Answer Key for “Test Yourself”

“Introduction”
Diplomacy”

If your answer is incorrect, review

3. d If your answer is incorrect, review the 8. e
“Dynamics of Permanent Ottoman
“Ad Hoc Ottoman Diplomacy 1299-1793”
Diplomacy”

If your answer is incorrect, review If your answer is incorrect, review

4. b 9. d
“Institutions of Permanent Ottoman “Dynamics of Permanent Ottoman
Diplomacy” Diplomacy”

If your answer is incorrect, review

5. b If your answer is incorrect, review “Institu- 10. e
“Dynamics of Ad Hoc Ottoman
tions of Permanent Ottoman Diplomacy”
Diplomacy”

Discuss the dynamics, instruments and institutions of ad

hoc Ottoman diplomacy?

Suggested Answers for “Your Turn”

The sense of superiority and powerfulness were important factors in Ottomans’
diplomatic relations in this period. On the other hand, the Ottoman Empire
was an entity ruled by both Islamic laws and customary laws and local
your turn 1 customs. Ottoman Sultans like Mehmed II issued qanunnames (books of
law) in accordance with the Turkish state tradition empowered rulers to make
laws, so the Ottoman system was not only ruled by religious laws, but also by
customary laws. Such a legal system provided flexibility and pragmatism to
the policies of the empire. Major instruments of Ottoman diplomacy until the
18th century were Âmans (mercies) or Ahidnames (treaties) and capitulations
which granted certain privileges and immunities to non-Muslims subjects
and states. In the ad hoc diplomacy period based on unilaterality, Ottoman
sultans were sending agents or envoys to carry out their temporary missions.
In the ad hoc diplomacy period, agents or envoys were sent to foreign states for
different purposes. They were assigned by the sultan for signing peace treaties
or trade agreements, peace proposals, carrying out peace negotiations or
mediating between two states, negotiating the clauses of treaties, establishing
or consolidating friendly relations, collecting debts of Ottomans, learning the
opinions and policies of the states about the empire, declaring the change
of throne, giving presents of the sultan, delivering letters from the sultan,
declaring an Ottoman victory, congratulating a new monarch on behalf of
the sultan, joining coronations of European monarchs, inviting European
monarchs to certain ceremonies and claiming taxes.

105
4
Ottoman Diplomacy and Diplomatic Letters

Discuss the dynamics, instruments and institutions of

permanent Ottoman diplomacy

The global conjuncture and strong state, military and economic structures
Suggested Answers for “Your Turn”

allowed the Ottomans to turn into an empire from a small beylik in the 15th and
16th centuries while the decline in all these dynamics and changes in the global
your turn 2 conjuncture started especially in the 17th and 18th centuries. Capitulations
granted by the Ottomans to foreign countries as early as the 15th century
turned into a burden that could not be carried by the empire as the power
balance shifted from the empire to European states. Under these circumstances,
diplomacy became a necessary tool to survive or at least delay the collapse of the
empire. Ottomans became a part of Concert of Europe system, which had been
established in Vienna Congress of 1815 after Napoleonic Wars, after the Crimea
War against the Russian Empire between 1853 and 1856. In this war, the Great
Britain and France allied with the Ottomans against Russians. From then on,
the Ottoman Empire became a part of this balance of power system because
both the Ottomans and the European States understood that the empire could
not survive alone. With the decline of Ottoman power in this period and the
need to make alliances with the European powers in order to survive, Ottoman
rulers did not hesitate to join multilateral conferences to solve their problems
in the international arena. Paris Treaty was signed in 1856 after the Crimea
War and it was stated that sovereignty and territorial integrity of the Ottoman
Empire would be protected by European powers especially the Great Britain
and France. Ottoman Empire adapted the rules and instruments of modern
diplomacy starting from the 19th century. In the same vein, they modernized
the instruments and institutions of their diplomatic structure. Modernization
and professionalization of Ottoman diplomacy started with Selim III, who was
a visionary sultan seeking for modernization and Westernization of Ottoman
system in all aspects such as the military, bureaucracy and economy. Therefore,
for Selim III, it was necessary for the Ottoman Empire to establish permanent
diplomatic missions in European capitals because the sultan was aware that in
comparison to the European state system, the Ottoman system was backward.
Therefore, modernization of the Ottoman system was crucial for the survival of
the empire.

What is the instrumental and institutional heritage of

Ottoman diplomacy in the Republican diplomacy?

Despite the rupture between the Ottoman Empire and the Turkish Republic,
there are some continuities between the two in foreign policy and diplomacy.
First of all, the Turkish Republic was established on the same geography
your turn 3 despite shrinkage of Ottoman territories after the 18th century. The Straits
and geographical location, as a bridge between Europe and Asia, of the
Turkish Republic can be considered as important elements of its foreign
policy. Secondly, the mindset of the Republican rulers and diplomats have
been shaped by the Ottoman balance of power strategy especially after the
19th century. Thirdly, rulers of the Turkish Republic similar to the Ottoman
sultans and the statesmen especially during the decline and collapse periods
have refrained from wars and they have attached great importance to the
solution of problems through diplomacy. Institutionally, the roots of Turkish
Ministry of Foreign Affairs date back to the Translation Room established
in 1821 by Mahmud II. In time, Hariciye Nezareti (Foreign Ministry) was
established and professional diplomats began to be trained.

106

Diplomacy
References
Anderson, Matthew Smith. The Rise of Modern
Diplomacy 1450-1919. New York: Longman,
1993.
Barston, R.P. Modern Diplomacy. London: Longman,
1988.
Davison, Roderic H. Nineteenth Century Ottoman
Diplomacy and Reforms. İstanbul: ISIS Press, 1999.
Erdem, Gökhan. Osmanlı İmparatorluğu’nda Sürekli
Diplomasiye Geçiş Süreci. Ankara University
Institute of Social Sciences, Unpublished PhD
Dissertation, 2008.
Finkel, Caroline. Rüyadan İmparatorluğa Osmanlı
1300-1923. İstanbul: Timaş Yayınları, 2014.
Gürkan, Emrah Sefa. Espionage in the 16th Century
Mediterranean: Secret Diplomacy, Mediterranean
Go-Betweens and the Ottoman Habsburg Rivalry.
Georgetown University Faculty of the Graduate
School of Arts and Sciences Unpublished PhD
Dissertation, 2011.
Hammer, Joseph Von. Osmanlı İmparatorluğu Tarihi.
İstanbul: İlgi Kültür Sanat Yayınları, 2014.
Hurewitz, J.C. “Ottoman Diplomacy and the
European States System,” Middle East Journal, 15
(2): 141-152.
İnalcık, Halil. Devlet-i Aliyye. İstanbul: İş Bankası
Kültür Yayınları, 2016.
İskit, Temel. Diplomasi: Tarihi, Teorisi ve Kurumları.
İstanbul: İstanbul Bilgi Üniversitesi Yayınları,
2007.
Karpat, Kemal. Osmanlı Modernleşmesi. İstanbul:
Timaş Yayınları, 2014.
Kınlı, Onur. Osmanlı’da Modernleşme ve Diplomasi.
İstanbul: İmge Kitabevi, 2006.
Kissinger, Henry. Diplomacy. New York: Simon &
Schuster’s, 1999.
Kodaman, Timuçin and Ekrem Yaşar Akçay.
“Kuruluştan Yıkılışa Kadar Osmanlı Diplomasi
Tarihi ve Türkiye’ye Bıraktığı Miras,” SDÜ FEF
Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 22, 75-92.
Kuran, Ercüment. Avrupa’da Osmanlı İkamet
Elçiliklerinin Kuruluşu ve İlk Elçilerin Siyasi
Faaliyetleri. Ankara: Türk Kültürünü Araştırma
Enstitüsü Yayınları, 1988.
Kurtaran Uğur. “Osmanlı Diplomasi Tarihinin
Yazımında Kullanılan Başlıca Kaynaklar İle Bu
Kaynakların İncelenmesindeki Metodolojik
ve Diplomatik Yöntemler Üzerine Bir
4
Değerlendirme,” OTAM (38), 107-139.
Mattingly, Garrett. Renaissance Diplomacy. New York:
Dover Publications, 1988.
Naff, Thomas. “Reform and Conduct of the Ottoman
Diplomacy in the Reign of Selim III 1789-1807,”
Journal of the American Oriental Society, 83 (3):
295-315.
Ortaylı, İlber. Osmanlı İmparatorluğunda Alma
Nüfuzu. İstanbul: Timaş Yayınları, 2008.
Ortaylı, İlber. İmparatorluğun En Uzun Yüzyılı.
İstanbul: Timaş Yayınları, 2008.
Ortaylı, İlber. Osmanlı’da Milletler ve Diplomasi.
İstanbul: İş Bankası Kültür Yayınları, 2014.
Pamuk, Şevket. Türkiye’nin 200 Yıllık İktisadi Tarihi.
İstanbul: İş Bankası Kültür Yayınları, 2014.
Sander, Oral. Anka’nın Yükselişi ve Düşüşü. İstanbul:
İmge Kitabevi, 2006.
Savaş, Ali İbrahim. Osmanlı Diplomasisi. İstanbul: 3F
Yayınevi, 2007.
Shaw, Stanford. History of the Ottoman Empire and
Modern Turkey. Cambridge: Cambridge university
Press, 1976.
Soysal, İsmail (ed). Çağdaş Türk Diplomasisi: 200 Yıllık
Süreç. Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu Yayınları,
1997.
Tuncer, Hadiye and Hüner Tuncer. Osmanlı
Diplomasisi ve Sefaretnameler. Ankara: Ümit
Yayıncılık, 1998.
Turan, Namık Sinan. İmparatorluk ve Diplomasi:
Osmanlı Diplomasisinin İzinde. İstanbul: İstanbul
Bilgi Üniversitesi Yayınları, 2015.
Unat, Faik Reşit. Osmanlı Sefirleri ve Sefaretnameleri.
Ankara: TTK Yayınları, 1987.
Ünal, Selçuk. Osmanlı Diplomatik Teşkilatı. Ankara:
Siyasal Bilgiler Fakültesi Yayınları, 1990.
Yasamee, F.A.K. Ottoman Diplomacy: Abdülhamid II
and the Great Powers 1878-1888. İstanbul: ISIS
Press, 1996.
Yurdusev, Nuri (ed). Ottoman Diplomacy:
Conventional or Unconventional? New York:
Palgrave MacMillan, 2004.
Watson, Adam. Diplomacy: The Dialogue Between
States. London: Routledge, 1984.
107
 Instruments and Institutions
Chapter 5 of Modern Diplomacy
After completing this chapter, you will be able to;

1 2
Analyze the development of modern Categorize and explain the instruments
Learning Outcomes

diplomacy within the framework of international of modern diplomacy such as bilateral

developments after the formation of modern diplomacy, multilateral diplomacy and summit
states diplomacy

3
Categorize and explain the institutions
of modern diplomacy such as ministry of
foreign affairs, diplomatic missions and non
state actors

Chapter Outline Key Terms

Modern Diplomacy
Origins and Evolution of Modern Diplomacy
Bilateral Diplomacy
Instruments of Modern Diplomacy Multilateral Diplomacy
Institutions of Modern Diplomacy Summit Diplomacy
Ministry of Foreign Affairs
Diplomatic Missions

108

Diplomacy
INTRODUCTION
Diplomacy is the main tool of conducting
inter-state relations. Its origins date back to ancient
Greece. From the 5th century BC to 14th century
AD, diplomatic activities were mainly carried out
by temporary missions which was called ad hoc
diplomacy. Rulers of states or state-like entities
were assigning envoys to fulfill specific missions
such as declaring war and peace, negotiating and
signing agreements, etc. Modern or permanent
diplomacy began to form in the Italian city
states. However, professionalization of diplomatic
institutions started with the Westphalia Treaty
in 1648 after which modern and secular states
began to be established. Evolution of diplomatic
instruments and institutions triggered after the
French Revolution with the formation of nation
states in today’s understanding. As time passed,
forms of these tools have changed. The last turning
point in this process can be regarded as the
globalization era after 1980s.
Westphalia Treaty
This treaty is regarded as the beginning of modern
and secular state formation in diplomatic history.
Westphalia Treaty can be considered as the first
international conference of the European states
which ended Thirty Years War between Habsburgs
and Bourbons in 1648. With this treaty, division of
Holy Roman Empire into more than three hundred
principalities was recognized and the position of
France in the European continent strengthened.
After Westphalia Treaty, formation of independent
states in Europe accelerated.
Diplomatic instruments can be classified as bilateral
diplomacy, multilateral diplomacy and summit
diplomacy which will be discussed in this chapter in
detail. All these instruments have different dynamics
and rules, but they are not mutually exclusive. In other
words, these instruments can be utilized separately as
well as in conjunction with each other.
Similarly, diplomatic institutions can be broadly
divided into three categories: ministry of foreign
affairs, diplomatic missions and non-state actors.
First professional ministry was established in France
in the early 17th century. Ministry of foreign affairs
is the core of diplomatic activities and until mid-
1900s, it had the monopoly of formulating and
5
implementing foreign policies of states. However,
with the emergence of new actors especially in the
globalization era, its role and control in diplomacy
eroded to the advantage of others, whereas ministry of
foreign affairs is still a significant actor in diplomacy.
Diplomatic missions, on the other hand, are the
oldest institutions of diplomacy. From the beginning
of relations between states, diplomatic missions
carried out policies of their rulers. Although its
form changed from ad hoc to permanent diplomacy
and its functions and structure evolved, diplomatic
missions are important elements of relations
between states. The Cold War was a turning
point in diplomacy, so diplomatic missions were
prioritized by the states as a result of the nuclear
threat between 1945 and 1991. With the Vienna
Convention in 1961, definitions, functions and
immunities of diplomatic missions were specified.
Globalization resulted in the diversification of
diplomatic institutions and changed functions and
roles of ministries of foreign affairs and diplomatic
missions. Non-state actors like non-governmental
organizations (NGOs) and multinational
companies (MNCs) were involved in diplomatic
practices. Although the state and its institutions are
at the center of diplomatic activities, the influence
of non-state actors in international relations and
diplomacy is indisputable.
Instruments and institutions of modern
diplomacy will be discussed in this chapter in detail
and three questions will be answered:
1) What are the origins of modern
diplomacy?
2) What are the instruments of modern
diplomacy?
3) What are the institutions of modern
diplomacy?
ORIGINS AND EVOLUTION OF
MODERN DIPLOMACY
Origins of modern diplomacy date back to
Italian city states in the 14th century. The basic
reason for the need to establish diplomatic relations
between Italian city states was the limited amount
of lands to rule. Therefore, they had to solve their
problems peacefully in such an environment prone
to warfare. As armies became more professional
and the impact of war on these states got more
severe, they had to find alternative ways to solve
their problems without going into war. Moreover,
the lack of outside pressure on the Italian peninsula
109
5
Instruments and Institutions of Modern Diplomacy
and the freedom of city states to conduct closer
relations resulted in the formation of modern
diplomacy with its institutions and instruments.
Venice was the forerunner of this process and the
main objectives of its rulers were self-preservation
and development of their state. As opposed to the
general view that religion and morality were the
main dynamics of the establishment of diplomatic
instruments and institutions in Italy, they were not
the priorities of Italian rulers and there were more
practical reasons for it. (Yurdusev, 11-12)
Besides Renaissance in the 14th century,
Reformation which spread Europe from Germany
after the 15th century played an important role in
the formation of modern diplomacy because it
accelerated the secularization of regimes and the
formation of modern states in today’s understanding.
Similarly, Westphalia Treaty in 1648 which ended
religious wars in Europe became a turning point in
the formation of modern states and the evolution
of modern diplomacy. After the Napoleonic wars,
which shook Europe thoroughly, European states
established the Concert of Europe system based on
balance of power in 1815 which protected status quo,
despite some regional wars, in Europe until WWI.
WWI was the first global mass mobilization
and warfare in world history. More than ten million
people died and wounded throughout the world and
the necessity to establish a stable and long-lasting
Concert of Europe
It is a system established in Europe with the
Vienna Congress on the basis of balance of power
strategy to protect status quo after Napoleonic
Wars between 1800 and 1815. In the early
1800s, France under the leadership of Napoleon
Bonaparte, who had declared his empire with
the fall of Republican regime in France, was
fighting with certain European states in order to
expand its territories especially eastwards. With
the defeat of Napoleon in Russia and Great
Britain, European states decided to establish such
a system in order to prevent the birth and rule
of Napoleon-like figures and states. Concert of
Europe system worked until the First World War
(WWI) despite some regional conflicts and wars.
However, with the polarization in the early 1900s,
this system was replaced by alliances and divisions
that paved the way for WWI.
110
diplomatic system came to the fore. After this brutal
war, League of Nations (LoN) was formed in 1919
to protect world peace and security as well as to solve
inter-state problems through diplomatic channels.
Nevertheless, the failure of the LoN or Versailles
system in which the victors of WWI imposed their
peace conditions to the losers, particularly Germany,
and the Great Depression in the late 1920s made all
these efforts futile and paved the way for WWII. As
a result of developing war technologies and rise of
fascism, more than fifty million people died in WWII.
League of Nations
This institution was the predecessor of the
United Nations which was established by
the victorious states of WWI on January
10, 1920. The Great Britain, France, Italy
and the United States were the main actors
in this system. It was established to protect
world peace and solve problems among
states. However, due to its internal problems
like strategies and policies of its main actors
towards the losers of WWI, it became futile
less than two decades. With its inability
to prevent Italian invasion of Abyssinia,
Japanese invasion of Manchuria and Nazi
invasion of Austria and Czechoslovakia,
the prestige of the institution dramatically
decreased and these developments resulted
in the eruption of WWII.
Before WWII, diplomatic efforts to solve
crises between states did not bear fruits, but the
destruction of WWII and the Cold War between
the US and the USSR lasted more than four decades
in the shadow of nuclear arms forced states to
find solutions to international problems through
diplomatic channels. However, in these two WWs,
diplomatic efforts were not neglected by the parties.
Especially, during WWII, leaders of Allies came
together in several conferences to decide their
strategies and post-WWII world order. The Cold
War was another turning point in the evolution of
modern diplomacy. Despite the existence of nuclear
threat stemmed from proliferation of nuclear
weapons and the feeling of insecurity throughout
the world, diplomacy became an integral part of

Diplomacy
Cold War politics especially in the form of summit
diplomacy between two superpowers. Therefore,
diplomatic institutions and instruments have been
professionalized since the beginning of the Cold
War with the unprecedented development of
globalization. Bilateral and multilateral negotiations
and summits have jointly become the platform of
inter-state relations. Institutionally, ministries of
Foreign Affairs and diplomatic missions are still
basic institutions of diplomacy. Non-Governmental
Organizations (NGOs) and Multi-National
Companies (MNCs) have become essential parts of
diplomacy in the global age.
1
Discuss the international developments
shaped the institutions and instruments
of modern diplomacy?
INSTRUMENTS OF MODERN
DIPLOMACY
Modern diplomacy is conducted through three
main instruments: bilateral diplomacy, multilateral
diplomacy and summit diplomacy. These instruments
have evolved throughout history, so their dynamics
have changed. More importantly, these instruments
are not mutually exclusive. In other words, two or
three of them can be utilized together.
- Bilateral Diplomacy
Bilateral diplomacy is the oldest form of
diplomatic practice consisting of two states meeting
to solve their problems. Its origins date back to
ancient Greece, but after the 14th century, it was
Figure 5.1 Bilateral Meeting of US and Chinese Leaders
professionalized by the Italian city states. Especially,
after the formation of modern states in the 17th
5
century, bilateral diplomacy became widespread
starting from Europe. The French Revolution was a
turning point in the evolution of bilateral diplomacy
because secular nation states began to form and
diplomacy became the main tool in conducting
inter-state relations. Until the end of WWI, bilateral
diplomacy kept its hegemony in the international
relations. With WWI, multilateral diplomacy was
introduced although there were some examples of it
in the 19th century like the Vienna Congress in 1815
and Berlin Congress in 1878. First article of Wilson’s
Fourteen Points states that “Open covenants of peace,
openly arrived at, after which there shall be no private
international understandings of any kind but diplomacy
shall proceed always frankly and in the public view.” In
other words, there was no room for secret, bilateral
diplomacy after WWI. Moreover, after the October
Revolution in Russia in 1917, Bolsheviks denounced
and disclosed all secret treaties signed before and
during WWI. With the introduction of multilateral
or conference diplomacy after WWI, bilateral
diplomacy lost its hegemony in the international
relations. Another reason for the rise of multilateral
diplomacy was the complexity and intricacy of
problems among states. The severity of WWI and
its effects on political, economic, social and military
structures of all states in the globe required multi-
party solutions to global problems. However, bilateral
diplomacy is still a part of diplomatic practice despite
the rise of multilateral and summit diplomacies.
Bilateral diplomacy is conducted between two
states, but, initially, these two states have to recognize
each other to establish diplomatic missions and
carry out diplomatic practice. Recognition means
the acceptance of the existence of a state as an
independent and sovereign entity in the international
arena. Recognition consists two rights of a state:
domestically it has to enjoy full sovereignty over its
territories, internationally it has to be independent
from any other state. Moreover, membership to the
0 (UN) is another criterion for recognition. UN
membership is an indicator of global recognition
and today almost all states with full sovereignty and
independence are members of UN. On the other
hand, according to the second article of the Vienna
Convention, which was accepted in 1961 and
determines the rules, instruments and institutions
of diplomacy, diplomatic relations between states
have to be based on “mutual consent.” Recognition
is a part of “mutual consent”, but recognition and
diplomacy do not always go hand-in-hand. More
clearly, states may recognize each other, but not
111
5
Instruments and Institutions of Modern Diplomacy

carry out diplomatic relations. For example, Turkish

Republic recognized Armenia, but they don’t conduct
diplomatic relations. In addition, recognition of a
state does not mean the recognition of its government.
Recognition of a government is the acceptance of this
government’s control in the state apparatus currently
and in the near future. (İskit, 210-211) Furthermore,
there are two types of recognition: de jure and de facto.
De jure recognition means recognizing a state with all
legal results and conducting diplomatic relations with
this state. On the contrary, in de facto a state accepts the
existence of another state as a separate entity, but refrains
from conducting diplomatic relations which may have
legal results. For example, many states conduct de facto
relations with Taiwan and carry out trade and economic
relations although they do not de jure recognize it due to
China. Similarly, Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus
(TRNC) is recognized only by Turkey, but some states
carry out economic relations with TRNC.
- Multilateral Diplomacy
United Nations
This institution was created by the victorious
states of WWII which defeated Fascism and its
expansionist policies. Main actors in the UN are
the United States, Russia (formerly the Soviet
Union), the Great Britain, France and China.
The basic objective of the UN is to protect
sovereignty of its member states and world peace.
However, when the crises and regional wars in
the world since its establishment are taken into
consideration, it can be securely argued that the
UN has reached its aims far from ideally. This
stems from its internal problems like the veto
rights of the permanent members of the Security
Council. (five states stated above) Especially
during the Cold War, it became a leverage
between superpowers to legitimize their actions
and put pressure on each other. Today, the UN
has about two hundred members and it has
various branches like UNICEF (UN Children’s
Fund), UNESCO (UN Educational, Scientific
and Cultural Organization), WFP (World Food
Programme), etc. dealing with certain world
problems.

Multilateral diplomacy is literally defined as

Figure 5.2 UN Meeting diplomatic relations between more than two states.
It is also known as “conference diplomacy” or
“parliamentary diplomacy” because multilateral
diplomatic relations are mainly conducted through conferences and face-to-face interaction between leaders
or missions of states. Its origins go back to Vienna Congress convened in 1815 after Napoleonic Wars when
European powers came up with the idea of balance of power strategy which sustained peace in Europe until
WWI. Multilateral diplomacy became popular in the 20th century because problems between states turned
into global problems such as peace and security, environment, health, migration, etc. and international
actors understood that such problems had to be negotiated and solved through multilateral diplomacy. The
rise of democracy and its ideals after WWII resulted in the democratization of diplomacy and diplomatic
practices. More importantly, the accountability of states to their domestic public opinion as well as world
public opinion necessitated the establishment of the instruments and institutions of multilateral diplomacy.
As a result, multilateral conferences or organizations aim to provide the support of all parties in the solution
of global problems which require support and initiative of all sides.
There are many advantages of multilateral conferences like focusing on specific issues and motivating
the parties to find a solution or reach an agreement in a limited period of time. As a result of collaboration
among participants, it develops closer relations between states. Finding a solution or reaching an agreement
is beneficial for all parties because it increases their prestige and popularity. Due to the limited period of time,
multilateral conferences force parties to focus on specific issues and come up with solutions. (İskit, 307-308)
On the other hand, multilateral conferences are used by powerful states to make their propaganda as dominant

112

Diplomacy
states in the international arena as well as drawing
the attention of all states to global problems such
as environmental and economic issues. Joining such
conferences and organizations increase the prestige
of participants. On the contrary, states not joining
these multilateral entities may lose their prestige
and the right to have a say in ultimate decisions.
Non-participating states may suffer from the
decisions made against them in these conferences.
Therefore, all the states having an interest in such
meetings push hard for participation. Furthermore,
multilateral diplomacy provides a medium for the
development of bilateral relations because through
bilateral meetings or social events during multilateral
conferences such as NATO and EU meetings, heads
or missions of states may develop their contacts and
relations. Lastly, multilateral conferences may ensure
compliance with agreements or decisions made
by the states better than bilateral ones due to the
pressure of other states and world public opinion.
Consequently, multilateral diplomacy has several
advantages and it is a common tool of diplomacy
today. It is mainly conducted under the umbrella of
multilateral organizations flourished in the second
half of the 20th century such as UN, NATO,
NAFTA and ASEAN.
Historically, WWI was a turning point in the
development of multilateral organizations. After
WWI, the Allies which defeated Entente powers
agreed on the establishment of a multilateral
organization to protect world peace and collective
security. In addition, they sought for creating a basis
for solution of problems via discussion among states.
As a result, League of Nations (LoN) was established
in 1920 to provide such a basis for multilateralism.
However, it can be regarded as a primitive form of
UN under the hegemony of Western powers. Due
to its internal problems and changes in the global
conjuncture such as the rise of fascism and Great
Depression in the 1930s, LoN did not fulfill the
expectations and prevent member states from fighting
with each other. After brutal and bloody WWII, the
Allies agreed on the establishment of a multilateral
structure and UN was established with the Atlantic
Charter in San Francisco Conference in 1945.
United Nations was established to consolidate
democratic ideals of the Allies, to protect world
peace and collective security, to sustain economic
development and to find solutions to global
problems. It was established by 51 states, but today
5
it has 193 members. (www.un.org) UN consists
of six main bodies: General Assembly, Security
Council, Economic and Social Council, Trusteeship
Council, International Court of Justice and
Secretariat. Except International Court of Justice in
Hague, other bodies of UN are in New York. Major
functional bodies of the UN are General Assembly
and Security Council. General Assembly comprises
of all UN members and each state has one vote for the
decisions. General Assembly focuses on issues such
as “considering and approving the United Nations
budget and establishing the financial assessments
of Member States; electing the non-permanent
members of the Security Council and the members
of other United Nations councils and organs,
on the recommendation of the Security Council
appointing the Secretary-General; considering and
making recommendations on the general principles
of cooperation for maintaining international peace
and security, including disarmament; discussing
any question relating to international peace and
security and, except where a dispute or situation is
currently being discussed by the Security Council,
making recommendations on it; discussing, with
the same exception, and making recommendations
on any questions within the scope of the Charter or
affecting the powers and functions of any organ of
the United Nations; initiating studies and making
recommendations to promote international political
cooperation, the development and codification of
international law, the realization of human rights
and fundamental freedoms, and international
collaboration in the economic, social, humanitarian,
cultural, educational and health fields; making
recommendations for the peaceful settlement of
any situation that might impair friendly relations
among countries; considering reports from the
Security Council and other United Nations organs.”
(UN Charter, Articles 10-17) Decisions are made
in the General Assembly by majority system. Major
decisions such as the ones related to peace and
security or election of non-permanent members
to Security Council requires two-thirds majority.
Other issues require simple majority.
Security Council mainly deals with issues related to
international peace and security such as “maintaining
international peace and security in accordance with
the principles and purposes of the United Nations;
investigating any dispute or situation which might
lead to international friction, recommending methods
113
5
Instruments and Institutions of Modern Diplomacy
of adjusting such disputes or the terms of settlement;
formulating plans for the establishment of a system
to regulate armaments; determining the existence
of a threat to the peace or act of aggression and to
recommend what action should be taken; calling on
Members to apply economic sanctions and other
measures not involving the use of force to prevent
or stop aggression; taking military action against
an aggressor; recommending the admission of new
Members; exercising the trusteeship functions of the
United Nations in “strategic areas”; recommending
to the  General Assembly the appointment of
the  Secretary General  and, together with the
Assembly, to elect the Judges of the  International
Court of Justice” (UN Charter, Articles 24-26) and
it has power of enforcement. There are two types
of membership to the Security Council: permanent
membership and non-permanent membership.
Permanent members comprised of the US, the UK,
Russia, France and China which have veto rights
sometimes causing deadlock during negotiations. The
structure of Security Council causes unrest among
other members due to the lack of power balance
within this structure.
On the other hand, Economic and Social Council
deals with “making or initiating studies and reports
with respect to international economic, social,
cultural, educational, health, and related matters and
making recommendations with respect to any such
matters to the General Assembly to the Members of
the United Nations, and to the specialized agencies
concerned, making recommendations for the
purpose of promoting respect for, and observance
of, human rights and fundamental freedoms for
all, preparing draft conventions for submission
to the General Assembly, with respect to matters
falling within its competence, calling international
conferences on matters falling within its competence
in accordance with the rules prescribed by the
United Nations” (UN Charter, Articles 62-66));
Trusteeship Council deals with “considering reports
submitted by the administering authority, accepting
petitions and examine them in consultation with
the administering authority, providing for periodic
visits to the respective trust territories at times agreed
upon with the administering authority and taking
these and other actions in conformity with the terms
of the trusteeship agreements” (UN Charter, Articles
87-88); International Court of Justice deals with
disputes between member states and its decisions are
114
binding for member states; and Secretariat deals with
“bringing to the attention of the Security Council
any matter which in his opinion may threaten the
maintenance of international peace and security”. The
head of Secretariat is the Secretary General elected
by General Assembly upon the recommendation
of Security Council. Besides its main bodies, UN
has subsidiary organs such as United Nations
Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
(UNESCO), World Health Organization (WHO),
Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO, United
Nations International Children’s Emergency Fund
(UNICEF) and United Nations High Commissioner
for Refugees (UNHCR). As global problems
diversified, ranging from protection of world peace
and collective security to health problems, starvation,
refugees and so on, and the problem of sustainability
appeared, the number of missions and bodies of
UN increased. Each body has a specific mission and
provides a medium of negotiation and discussion in
specific issues.
UN is the basic global instrument of multilateral
diplomacy in which almost all sovereign and
independent states take part. However, instruments
of multilateral diplomacy are not limited to
this global organization. International-regional
organizations and functional organizations are other
instruments of multilateral diplomacy and they are
categorized in terms of their missions, functions
and the level of cooperation among its members.
The number of members in organizations with
different missions is more than the ones with limited
objectives. Organizations like Islamic Conference
Organization, Arab League, Commonwealth and
ASEAN have several missions such as economic and
social cooperation as well as political and cultural
solidarity among its members. Alliance organizations
like NATO, CENTO and Warsaw Pact unite their
members to reach a common objective. Such
organizations aim to protect their members against
external threats, particularly military, as well as
cooperation in military and political areas. They also
focus on political, economic, social and humanitarian
issues which may pose a threat to peace and stability
in their region. For example, North Atlantic Treaty
Organization (NATO) was established by the US in
1949 as a military alliance against the communist
threat to the North Atlantic area, but its scope
expanded as the perception of communist threat got
more serious. Likewise, Warsaw Pact was established

Diplomacy
by the Soviet Union to unite all communist countries
in the Soviet sphere of influence against capitalist
expansionism and consolidate Soviet hegemony
over other members. Last group of international
regional organizations was functional organizations
like EFTA, NAFTA and OECD. These entities unite
states around their economic, social and political
objectives rather than security purposes. The main
characteristic of member states in such organizations
is their geographical position. In other words,
member states of these organizations generally share
the same geographical location.
In addition to global and international-regional
organizations, ad hoc meetings are instruments
of multilateral diplomacy. Ad hoc meetings can be
divided into two groups: meetings about issues
threatening peace and security and meetings about
technical issues. Meetings on peace and security
are primarily organized by international or regional
powers. Invitation to such meetings is important
in the sense that it is the recognition of that state
as a party in the ultimate solution or that state has
interests regarding the meeting. Moreover, joining
such meetings is prestigious for the participant state.
On the other hand, meetings about technical issues
are generally organized by the state interested in
the solution of the problem and ready to bear the
expenses and administrative responsibility of the
meeting. Such meetings are organized to negotiate
and, if possible, solve environmental issues, water or
transportation problems between two or more states.
(İskit, 327-329)
Procedures of negotiations in multilateral
organizations and meetings are different from bilateral
meetings in the sense that bilateral negotiations are
based on rules and procedures jointly decided by the
parties before or during the meeting. On the other
hand, multilateral negotiations are carried out on the
basis of procedures written on the charter or covenant
of the organization. For example, procedures of
negotiations in the UN are included in the UN
Charter. Furthermore, solutions or agreements
reached in multilateral negotiations may be based on
“minimum common interest” of all sides. Therefore,
negotiators have to consider many different positions
and interests during negotiations, so participants in
multilateral negotiations reach a conclusion in the
medium or long term, while negotiators in bilateral
meetings may reach conclusions or solutions even
during their negotiations. Another result of the
5
complexity of multilateral negotiations can be seen
in voting procedures of multilateral organizations. In
such organizations like the UN, voting procedures
are written in the charter of the organization and the
main criterion for this establishment is the difficulty
of making decisions with a lot of parties having
different positions and interests. In addition, there is
a distinction in voting procedures between substantial
issues and procedural issues. Some decisions in
multilateral organizations are taken by simple
majority (50%+1), while some decisions require
qualified majority (2/3, 3/4). (İskit, 331, 339)
Consequently, multilateral diplomacy can be
regarded as a diplomatic instrument allowing more
states than bilateral and summit diplomacies to
participate in decision making mechanisms of global
or regional issues. It became popular after WWII
although it was originated from the Vienna Congress
in 1815 due to the diversification of problems in
this period. At the beginning, the main issue in
the agenda of world politics was the preservation
of peace and collective security. However, as new
problems emerged ranging from environment and
human rights to starvation and health, the scope of
multilateral negotiations and organizations expanded.
There are different types of multilateral meetings
and organizations such as global organizations,
international-regional organizations, ad hoc meetings
and so on. These diplomatic instruments have
different dynamics and procedures from bilateral
diplomacy. Although more states are covered by these
entities, the balance of power in these systems and the
hegemony of powerful states are still posing threats
to the success of these instruments. However, when
bilateral diplomacy and summit diplomacy are taken
into consideration, multilateral diplomacy can be
regarded as more democratic than the others.
Summit Diplomacy
Summit diplomacy traces back to Middle Ages
when the territories of monarchs were regarded as
their own properties. In order to solve their problems
or develop their relations, monarchs were meeting
regularly. (İskit, 334-335) With the formation of
modern nation states, the decline of monarchies and
the establishment of modern diplomatic missions,
diplomatic practices began to be carried out by
professionals. However, WWI was a turning point in
the rise of summit diplomacy as a result the decrease
in trust to professional diplomats due to their inability
to prevent such a global war and summit diplomacy
115
5
Instruments and Institutions of Modern Diplomacy
became widespread. During the Paris Conference right
after the war, heads of the allied states’ governments
dominated the agenda and developments. US
President Woodrow Wilson, UK Prime Minister
Lloyd George, French Prime Minister George
Clemenceau and Italian Prime Minister Vittorio
Orlando dominated the process of the establishment
of post-WWI world order called Versailles System. In
Paris Peace Conference, foundations of the League of
Nations (LoN) were laid and the organization was
established in 1920. However, the internal problems
of this system paved the way for WWII which ended
between 1939 and 1945.
Figure 5.3 G-8 Summit
At the end of WWII, Allies defeated fascist
regimes constituted the Axis and post-WWII world
order was discussed and determined via Summit
Diplomacy again. US President Franklin D.
Roosevelt, UK Prime Minister Winston Churchill
and Soviet leader Joseph Stalin came together
during and after WWII. The beginning of the Cold
War right after WWII caused Summit Diplomacy
to become popular among great powers because of
the nuclear threat and irreversible character of such
a war. US and Soviet leaders occasionally met to
discuss the fate of the Cold War and nuclear arms
race. The first summit was convened between US
President Dwight Eisenhower and Soviet leader
Nikita Khrushchev in Geneva in 1955 to appease
the tension between two superpowers. Their
successors kept on meeting and especially in the
1960s and 1970s, summits like SALT (Strategic
Arms Limitation Treaty) and START (Strategic
Arms Reduction Treaty), aiming the limitation and
reduction of strategic nuclear arms, were the basic
instruments of discussion between the US and
USSR. All-in-all, summit diplomacy has become
an influential tool of diplomacy since the Cold War.
In the meantime, the scope of summit diplomacy
expanded and multilateral summits began to be
116
organized. First convened in Rambouillet in 1975
with the participation of the United States, France,
Germany, the Great Britain, Japan, Canada and Italy,
G-7 summit is an important example of summit
diplomacy. With the collapse of the Soviet Union
and end of the Cold War, Russia joined this group.
G-8 summits are annual meetings of member states.
Similarly, ASEAN (Association of South East Asian
Nations) summits are organized triennially.
Summit diplomacy has some advantages and
disadvantages. First of all, they have symbolic power
as the meeting of heads of states which enable them
to use these summits as their propaganda tools to
maximize the interests of their states. On the other
hand, presidents or prime ministers are ultimate
authorities in the decision making mechanism, so
revision of their decisions in summits are difficult to
change. The lack of a changing mechanism for their
decisions is a problem because generally leaders don’t
know details of policies. In addition, they may have
some positive or negative biases misleading their
opinions and decisions about their counterparts.
Therefore, these personal problems or biases may cause
some problems and crises. On the contrary, leaders
may have close relations with their counterparts which
may cause the ignorance of national interests and they
may make some decisions or treaties conflicting their
state’s interests. (İskit, 336)
Summits can be categorized into three groups:
regular summits, ad hoc summits and high-level
meetings. (İskit, 338-342) Regular summits provide
basis for negotiations, but their success is based on
the frequency and duration. Frequently organized
and long meetings enable the participants to reach
some conclusions and solve problems. Moreover, due
to the length of such meetings, there is room for re-
negotiation unless parties don’t reach a conclusion in
the first trial. In time, as these summits are regularly
convened, their principles are specified and their
efficiency increases. More importantly, regular
meetings allow leaders to prepare before sessions and
learn details of issues discussed in these meetings
as well as characteristics and tendencies of their
counterparts. Summits are effective tools to conclude
negotiations discussed in international forums
successfully. In order to reach conclusions satisfactory
for both sides, leaders push hard for succeed in
these summits, so the “diplomatic momentum”
between two summits continues. Regular meetings
of European Union (EU) leaders are important
examples of these meetings. Ad hoc summits, on the

Diplomacy
other hand, are convened to solve specific problems
or discuss specific issues as well as to create diplomatic
momentum. Camp David meetings in 1978 led by
Jimmy Carter to discuss peace settlement between
Egypt and Israel with the participation of Egyptian
leader Anwar Sadat and Israeli prime minister
Menachem Begin can be regarded as an example of
ad hoc summit. After twelve days of negotiations,
both sides agreed on signing a peace agreement.
Main objective of an ad hoc summit is to create a
symbolic milestone for solution of a specific problem
between states. Another example of ad hoc summits
is funeral ceremonies of leaders. In these summits,
leaders and their missions meet and discuss certain
issues as well as develop their relations. Lastly, high-
level meetings can be defined as meetings of leaders
within the context of their official visits. Especially,
newly elected leaders visit foreign countries and meet
their counterparts. Such visits provide information
about policies and characteristics and opinions
of their counterparts. In addition, leaders aim at
developing friendly relations and economic relations
with the host country.
To sum up, like bilateral and multilateral
diplomacy, summit diplomacy is an important
instrument of modern diplomacy. However, it
needs to be underlined that these instruments are
not mutually-exclusive. In other words, summit
diplomacy can be used as a part of bilateral
Further Reading
How to fix the United Nations?
As we pass the 70th anniversary of the
founding of the United Nations, and approach
the appointment of the next U.N. secretary-
general for the decade ahead, we need to consider
afresh the institution’s future, its relevance to the
global challenges of our time, and what changes
are necessary to ensure its long-term future.
First, the U.N. matters. In fact, because it
is such an embedded part of the postwar order,
it matters a lot. So much so that if it were to
fail, falter, or just fade away, this would further
erode the stability of an already fragile global
order. Our current order faces new, mounting,
5
or multilateral diplomacy. Like bilateral and
multilateral diplomacy, summit diplomacy has
some advantages and disadvantages. The efficiency
of these diplomatic instruments depend on the
power and capabilities of states as well as the
institutions using these instruments. Diplomatic
missions, ministries of foreign affairs and non-state
actors such as non-governmental organizations
(NGOs) and multi-national companies (MNCs)
are basic institutions of modern diplomacy.
NGO
These are non-profit, voluntary citizens’
organizations acting on national, regional
or international levels out of the jurisdiction
of states. They provide monitoring for the
implementation of decisions and treaties on
various issues ranging from environment to
human rights.
2
Discuss the basic instruments of modern
diplomacy
and compounding challenges unlike any we
have seen in a quarter of a century. Along with
a rapid deterioration in U.S.-Russia and U.S.-
China relations (accompanied by a new strategic
rapprochement between Moscow and Beijing),
we face a humanitarian refugee crisis, an ongoing
war in Syria and Ukraine, and a range of growing
security challenges across East Asia.
There have been even more profound
transformations in global geo-economics,
where China is now the world’s second-largest
economy and, despite recent slower growth, is
soon to become the largest — supplanting the
United States after more than 150 years of global
economic dominance.
117
5
Instruments and Institutions of Modern Diplomacy
In the meantime, Europe’s economy has yet to
emerge from a decade of stagnation and where Eu-
ropean politics, both regionally and nationally, rep-
resent a continuing drag on a robust future. Beyond
these emerging global fault lines threatening traditi-
onal patterns of stability, we are also seeing the rise
of a new generation of lethal non-state actors, prin-
cipally in the form of violent jihadism, who reject
the state-based system, actively seek to destroy it,
and operate entirely outside the already flimsy fabric
of international law.
To add to the new complexities facing the current
global order, we are also witnessing another wave
of challenges generated by accelerating and increa-
singly unpredictable dynamics of globalization. On
the one hand, this is generating new demands for
more effective global governance to deal with “the
globalization of everything.” At the same time, glo-
balization is also unleashing dangerous new politi-
cal, economic, and social counterforces from those
that are not benefiting from the globalization pro-
ject of the last quarter of a century, manifesting as a
potent cocktail of nationalism, protectionism, and
xenophobia. These forces, in turn, are beginning to
threaten the fabric of the current order in new ways,
and at multiple levels, as conflicting constituencies
simultaneously demand of their governments both
more and less globalization.
Taken together, we seem to be approaching a
new global tipping point that departs from the
comfortable assumptions of recent decades that the
dynamics of greater global integration were some-
how both benign and unstoppable. So when we are
seeing the emergence of new forces that threaten to
pull the world apart, the very institutions the inter-
national community established to bring the world
together through cooperative forms of global gover-
nance should be more important than ever. Yet the
uncomfortable truth is that these institutions have
never been weaker. We see this with the World Tra-
de Organization, which has struggled unsuccessfully
for more than a decade to bring about a new trade
round; the International Monetary Fund, which
despite its charter could not handle the global fi-
nancial crisis and had to yield to the creation of a
new, non-multilateral institution (the G-20) as the
premium organization of global financial economic
governance; and the U.N. itself, where institutions
are rarely empowered by member states to deal ef-
fectively with major global challenges.
118
After 70 years, the U.N. has become so “facto-
red in” to the international order that we are barely
conscious of the stabilizing role it plays in setting
broad parameters for the conduct of international
relations. We tend to take the U.N. for granted.
We see it as a comfortable part of the international
furniture
…………………………………….
While the U.N. today is not broken, it is in tro-
uble. Many fear it is starting to drift into irrelevance
as states increasingly avoid the U.N. on the most
important questions facing the international com-
munity, seeking substantive solutions elsewhere.
Many are concerned that the U.N. is being overw-
helmed by the major systemic changes and challen-
ges now buffeting the global order. The U.N. has
a 20th-century institutional structure and culture
that is struggling to adapt to these new 21st-century
realities. And if it fails to adapt, the U.N. will slowly
slide into the shadowlands.
…………………………………………….
we need a U.N. whose inherent legitimacy and
universality are reaffirmed by a formal political re-
commitment to the fundamental principles of mul-
tilateralism by member states. We need a U.N. that
structurally integrates its peace and security, susta-
inable development, and human rights agendas as
a strategic continuum, rather than leaving them as
the self-contained, institutional silos of the past. We
need a U.N. that helps build bridges between the
great powers, particularly at a time of rising gre-
at-power tensions. We need a U.N. with a robust
policy-planning capability, looking into the future
several years out, not just at the crises of the day. We
need a U.N. that embraces a comprehensive doct-
rine of prevention, rather than just reaction, that
is directly reflected in the organization’s leadership
structure, culture, and resources. We need a U.N. in
the field that finally resolves the problem of its rigid
institutional silos by moving increasingly to integ-
rated, multidisciplinary teams to deal with specific
challenges. We need a U.N. driven by the measure-
ment of results, not just the elegance of its processes.
We need a U.N. where women are at the center
of the totality of its agenda, not just parts of it, so
that their full human potential can be realized as a
matter of social justice, and because to fail to do so

Diplomacy
would further undermine peace, security, deve-
lopment, and human rights. We need a U.N. where
young people have their voices heard at the center
of the U.N.’s councils, not simply as a paternalis-
tic afterthought, to help shape a future of genuine
hope for the more than 3 billion people today un-
der 25 years old. We need a U.N. that is relevant
to the new, emerging, critical global policy agendas
of the future, not just those of the past, including
effectively countering terrorism and violent extre-
mism, enhancing cybersecurity, constraining lethal
autonomous weapons systems, dealing with the
inadequate enforcement of international humanita-
rian law for the wars of the future, and developing
a comprehensive approach to planetary boundaries
beyond climate change, particularly for our oceans.
We need a U.N. that can efficiently, effectively, and
flexibly act within the reality imposed by ongoing
budgetary constraints, rather than just hoping that
the fiscal heavens will one day magically reopen, be-
cause they won’t.
INSTITUTIONS OF MODERN
DIPLOMACY
States are still major actors of diplomacy despite
erosion of their jurisdiction as a result of globalization.
In addition, they establish two main institutions
to carry out their diplomatic activities: ministry of
foreign affairs and diplomatic missions working
under the control of these ministerial structures. On
the other hand, as a result of globalization, some non-
state actors have involved in diplomatic practice, yet
the dominance of ministry of foreign affairs in the
implementation of diplomacy still continues.
Figure 5.4 Turkish Ministry of Foreign Affairs
- Ministry of Foreign Affairs
Ministry of foreign affairs is the main
body in the state apparatus responsible for the
5
……………………………………………..
For the U.N. to have a robust future in delive-
ring results that are directly relevant to the challen-
ges of the international community, we must acti-
vely engage in a process of continually reinventing
the institution.
…………………………………….
So what can be done? …………….
There is a rational basis for optimism about the
U.N.’s future. But overcoming inertia requires ef-
fort. Nor should we succumb to a type of fashio-
nable pessimism that substantive change is too hard.
The truth is that while the challenges the U.N. faces
are real; the answers really do lie within our grasp —
if we can deploy the collective political will to make
change happen.
Source: Kevin Rudd – Foreign Policy
http://foreignpolicy.com/2016/09/19/how-to-
fix-the-united-nations/
formulation and implementation of foreign
policy. It consists of the ministerial structure
and diplomatic missions. The first ministry
of foreign affairs in today’s understanding was
established in France in the 1620s by Cardinal
Richelieu after three centuries from the
establishment of modern diplomatic missions.
With the formation of modern nation states in
the 19th century, ministry of foreign affairs kept
the monopoly of conducting foreign relations.
In time, formulation and implementation of
foreign relations by the ministry professionalized
and its scope expanded. Ministry of foreign
affairs have different names in different
countries like Foreign Office in the UK and
State Department in the US. Until the second
half of the 20th century, ministry of foreign
affairs preserved its hegemony in foreign policy.
However, with the acceleration of globalization
in the second half of the 20th century and the
diversification of issues in foreign relations
heavily influenced the monopoly of ministry. As
summit diplomacy and direct contact between
heads of governments became widespread and
non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and
multinational companies (MNCs) took part in
foreign relations, ministry lost its monopoly in
the foreign policy.
119
5
Instruments and Institutions of Modern Diplomacy

Today, ministry of foreign affairs is mainly ministry of foreign affairs and diplomatic missions
responsible for the coordination of foreign policy are the most important actors in this process.
rather than formulation and implementation of
foreign policy only by itself. However, ministry
of foreign affairs still plays an important role in
the implementation of foreign policy because it is
the main body in the state apparatus having such
experience and professional staff in foreign policy
issues. In the same vein, ministry of foreign affairs
is responsible for establishment of diplomatic
missions in foreign countries as well as recruitment
and training of diplomatic personnel. In addition, it
is responsible for appointment and settlement of the
diplomatic personnel as well as buying or renting, Figure 5.5 An Embassy Building
protecting and maintaining assets of diplomatic - Diplomatic Missions
missions in foreign countries. Therefore, there are
Diplomatic missions are main components of
several branches responsible for such activities in
diplomacy acting on behalf of their state in the
ministry of foreign affairs. Functions of ministry
state they are accredited to. Origins of diplomatic
is not limited to the implementation of foreign
missions go back to ad hoc diplomacy period in
policy and establishment of diplomatic missions. It
which states were conducting foreign relations
also gives consultation to statesmen and conducts
through temporary missions and envoys rather
relations with the diplomats of foreign countries.
than establishing resident embassies. Ad hoc
More importantly, ministry is responsible for the
diplomacy was replaced by permanent diplomacy
promotion and propaganda abroad on behalf of
and its instruments and institutions as modern
the state. (İskit, 344-345)
states began to form especially after the 14th
In order to effectively formulate and implement century starting with Italy. Functions of diplomatic
foreign policy, memory of ministry of foreign affairs missions evolved in time as dynamics, instruments
should be strong. In other words, archives have to and institutions of diplomacy changed. Today, there
be regularly and systematically registered in foreign are different levels of diplomatic representation
ministry. Therefore, there are certain branches and diplomatic missions have several functions
responsible for the registration, protection and and immunities. Definitions, functions and
maintenance of diplomatic correspondence such immunities of diplomatic missions and diplomats
as agreements, reports and letters in ministries of were specified and systematized by UN with the
foreign affairs. As the branch for archives, ministries Vienna Convention, consisting 53 articles, in
have legal branches controlling compliance of 1961. Rules and principles of Vienna Convention
agreements with international and domestic laws. are still valid and constitute the basis of diplomatic
Lastly, ministry of foreign affairs has a political relations.
branch making proposals or warnings regarding
First of all, according to the 2nd Article of the
foreign policy of a state. Political branch is an
convention, diplomatic relations between two states
important part of ministry in order to conduct
are established by mutual consent. In other words,
proactive policies rather than reactive ones in such
two states have to be willing to conduct diplomatic
a world changing dramatically day-by-day.
relations. In addition, both states have to agree on
All-in-all, ministry of foreign affairs is still the the person as the head of the diplomatic mission.
most important institution of foreign policy despite The sending state has to take the approval of the
the erosion of its authority with the emergence receiving state through agrément for the person
of new actors in foreign policy issues as a result accredited to the receiving state. On the other
of integration of economic, military, social and hand, the receiving state is not obliged to make
cultural issues to the scope of its action. However, an explanation in case of the refusal of agrément.
implementation of foreign policy decisions taken (Vienna Convention, 4th Article) Furthermore,
by the state is still carried out by the professionals of

120

Diplomacy
the receiving state has the right to declare the
head of mission or a member of diplomatic staff as
persona non grata (unwanted person) in any time
and without an obligation to make an explanation.
In such cases, the sending state has to recall this
person or terminate his functions in the mission.
(Vienna Convention, 9th Article) Diplomatic
missions act under the jurisdiction of the ministry
of foreign affairs. According to the 10th Article
of the convention, the ministry is responsible for
“the appointment of members of the mission, their
arrival and their final departure or the termination
of their functions with the mission; the arrival
and final departure of a person belonging to the
family of a member of the mission and, where
appropriate, the fact that a person becomes or
ceases to be a member of the family of a member
of the mission; the arrival and final departure of
private servants in the employ of persons referred
to in subparagraph (a) and, where appropriate,
the fact that they are leaving the employ of such
persons; the engagement and discharge of people
resident in the receiving State as members of the
mission or private servants entitled to privileges
and immunities.”
The 1st article of the convention defines
diplomatic personnel. According to this article,
the “head of the mission is the person charged by
the sending State with the duty of acting in that
capacity”, the “members of the mission consist of the
head of the mission and the members of the staff in
a mission”; the “members of the staff of the mission
are the administrative, technical and service staff in
a mission; the “members of the diplomatic staff are
the members of the staff in a mission coming from
diplomatic ranks; a “diplomatic agent is the head of
the mission or a member of the diplomatic staff of
the mission”; the “members of the administrative
and technical staff are the members of the staff
employed in the administrative and technical service
of the mission”; the “members of the service staff
are the members of the staff in a mission employed
for the domestic service of the mission”; a “private
servant is a person in the domestic service of a
member of the mission, but not an employee of
the sending State” and, lastly, the “premises of the
mission are the buildings or parts of buildings and
the land ancillary, thereto, irrespective of ownership,
used for the purposes of the mission including
the residence of the head of the mission”. Shortly,
5
diplomatic personnel have several ranks and consist
of both diplomatic agents and technical staff. Like
diplomatic personnel, there are three types of heads of
diplomatic mission: ambassadors or nuncios; envoys,
ministers or internuncios and chargés d’affaires.
Ambassadors or nuncios are accredited to heads of
state or other heads of mission of equivalent rank;
envoys, ministers and internuncios are accredited to
heads of state and chargés d’affaires are accredited to
ministers of foreign affairs. In case of the inability of
ambassador or nuncio, chargés d’affaires may act as
the head of mission. This classification also shows
the strength and intimacy of diplomatic relations
because generally ambassadors are the heads of
missions in the states having friendly and close
relations and representation by chargés d’affaires can
regarded as a lower level representation.
Functions of diplomatic missions are
defined in the 3rd article of Vienna Convention.
Accordingly, diplomatic missions are responsible
for “representing the sending State in the receiving
State; protecting the interests of the sending State
and its nationals in the receiving State within the
limits of the international law; negotiating with
the Government of the receiving State on behalf
of his government; ascertaining by all lawful means
conditions and developments in the receiving
State, and reporting to his government; promoting
friendly relations between the sending State and
the receiving State, and developing their economic,
cultural and scientific relations.” Duties specified
in the convention are similar to the functions of
envoys or agents of ad hoc diplomacy. However,
as international relations diversified, functions
of diplomatic missions got more complex. For
example, protection of sending’s states and its
nationals’ interests can be divided into two because
these functions are carried out by different staff
in the same mission. Top representative of the
sending state in the receiving one is the ambassador
and he is mainly responsible for the protection of
the sending state’s interests. On the other hand,
consuls and consulates are mainly responsible for
the protection of sending state’s nationals’ rights in
the receiving state. As well as protecting rights of
the nationals of the sending state, consulates issue
passport, travel document and visa to these people.
Moreover, they act as notary for proceedings of
nationals of the sending state and the former
represents the latter on behalf of legal bodies in the
121
5
Instruments and Institutions of Modern Diplomacy
receiving state. Consulates are also responsible for
proceedings of ships with the flag of sending state
and planes and their control. Despite the division
of labor between embassies and consulates, the
latter acts dependently on the former and the
ambassador is the ultimate authority of consul’s
and consulate’s actions.
Diplomatic missions and diplomats act under
the protection of immunities granted by the Vienna
Convention. There are two types of immunities:
immunities of missions and immunities of
diplomats. Articles 22nd to 28th regulate
immunities of diplomatic missions. In accordance
with these articles, “the premises of the mission
shall be inviolable. The agents of the receiving State
may not enter them, except with the consent of
the head of the mission”. More importantly, it is
the responsibility of the receiving state to protect
the premises of the diplomatic mission. “The
premises of the mission, their furnishings and other
property thereon and the means of transport of the
mission shall be immune from search, requisition,
attachment or execution.” (Vienna Convention,
Article 22/3) “The sending State and the head
of the mission shall be exempt from all national,
regional or municipal dues and taxes in respect
of the premises of the mission, whether owned or
leased, other than such as represent payment for
specific services rendered. The exemption from
taxation referred to in this article shall not apply
to such dues and taxes payable under the law of
the receiving State by persons contracting with the
sending State or the head of the mission.” (Vienna
Convention, Article 23) Furthermore, archives
and documents of the sending state’s mission are
inviolable (Vienna Convention, Article 24) and
“the receiving State shall permit and protect free
communication on the part of the mission for
all official purposes. In communicating with the
Government and the other missions and consulates
of the sending State, wherever situated, the mission
may employ all appropriate means, including
diplomatic couriers and messages in code or cipher.
However, the mission may install and use a wireless
transmitter only with the consent of the receiving
State. The official correspondence of the mission
shall be inviolable. Official correspondence means
all correspondence relating to the mission and its
functions. The diplomatic bag shall not be opened
or detained and the packages constituting the
122
diplomatic bag must bear visible external marks of
their character and may contain only diplomatic
documents or articles intended for official use. The
diplomatic courier, who shall be provided with
an official document indicating his status and the
number of packages constituting the diplomatic
bag, shall be protected by the receiving State in
the performance of his functions. He shall enjoy
person inviolability and shall not be liable to any
form of arrest or detention.” (Vienna Convention,
Article 27)
Like diplomatic missions, diplomats have
certain immunities and exemptions. The receiving
state is responsible for protecting his inviolable
immunities, freedom and dignity. Under normal
conditions, diplomats cannot be arrested or
detained. (Vienna Convention, Article 29)
However, if a diplomat is involved in “a real action
relating to private immovable property situated in
the territory of the receiving State, unless he holds
it on behalf of the sending State for the purposes
of the mission; an action relating to succession in
which the diplomatic agent is involved as executor,
administrator, heir or legatee as a private person
and not on behalf of the sending State; an action
relating to any professional or commercial activity
exercised by the diplomatic agent in the receiving
State outside his official functions.” (Vienna
Convention, Article 31) Moreover, diplomats
are exempt from all personal, municipal, regional
and national taxes except some of them. (Vienna
Convention, Articles 34-36)
Immunities granted by the receiving state
are limited to the missions of diplomats and
they enjoy these immunities, under normal
conditions, to the end of their office. When the
functions of a diplomat come to an end, “these
privileges and immunities shall normally cease at
the moment when he leaves the country, or on
expiry of a reasonable period in which to do so,
but shall subsist until that time, even in case of
armed conflict. However, with respect to acts
performed by such a person in the exercise of his
functions as a member of the mission, immunity
shall continue to subsist. In case of the death of
a member of the mission, the members of his
family shall continue to enjoy the privileges and
immunities to which they are entitled until the
expiry of a reasonable period in which to leave the
country. In the event of the death of a member

Diplomacy
of the mission not a national of or permanently
resident in the receiving State or a member of his
family forming part of his household, the receiving
State shall permit the withdrawal of the movable
property of the deceased, with the exception of
any property acquired in the country the export
of which was prohibited at the time of his death.
Estate, succession and inheritance duties shall
not be levied on movable property the presence
of which in the receiving State was due solely to
the presence there of the deceased as a member
of the mission or as a member of the family of
a member of the mission.” (Vienna Convention,
Article 39) Diplomats should act accordingly with
the laws and regulations of the receiving state
and they cannot use their diplomatic positions
for their personal benefits. (Vienna Convention,
Articles 41-42) There are two types of the end
of diplomatic mission for a diplomatic agent:
the sending state may call the agent back or
the receiving state may declare that it does not
recognize the agent as a member of sending state’s
mission (Vienna Convention, Article 43) On
the other hand, if relations between two states
deteriorate, a diplomatic mission or a diplomatic
agent ceases its duties. However, even in case of
war, the receiving state must grant immunities
and privileges to the moment that diplomats
and their families leave the state. Moreover, the
receiving state, even in case of armed conflict,
must protect the premises, properties and archives
of the diplomatic mission of the sending state. In
return, the sending state may entrust the custody
of the premises of the mission, together with its
property and archives, to a third State acceptable
to the receiving State; and it may entrust the
protection of its interests and those of its nationals
to a third State acceptable to the receiving State.”
(Vienna Convention, Articles 44-45)
All-in-all, diplomatic missions and diplomats
have certain immunities and exemptions granted
by the Vienna Convention and states carry out
their diplomatic relations on the basis of these
principles. On the other hand, institutions of
diplomacy are not limited to state actors like
the ministry of foreign affairs and diplomatic
missions. Recently, some non-state actors have
5
involved in diplomacy with the diversification of
issues regarding diplomacy.
- Non-State Actors
Figure 5.6 ANGOs
Globalization has blurred boundaries between
nation states especially for the last three decades.
Free flow of goods, capital and especially people in a
world with diminishing boundaries is regarded as a
threat to sovereignty and independence of national
states because such developments cause erosion
in the jurisdiction of a state. This trend has some
repercussions in foreign policy and implementation
because the state and its institutions are not the only
authority influencing states’ foreign policy. As a result
of globalization process, new actors emerged such as
NGOs and MNCs and the role of these actors in
international relations is regularly increasing.
NGOs are non-governmental and non-profit
organizations interested in global problems such
as global warming, pollution, human rights,
children’s rights, health problems, refugees and so
on. These entities are organizing campaigns in these
issues and aiming to consolidate and influence
world public opinion. As global problems get
more complex, NGOs become more influential.
They are independent from governments and
donated by individuals rather than states. For
example, Human Rights Watch (HRW) is an
NGO interested in violations of human rights
in different parts of the world. Missions of
HRW are monitoring, reporting and following-
123
5
Instruments and Institutions of Modern Diplomacy

up violations of human rights such as refugees, with the emergence of neo-liberalism after 1980s
detainees, academicians and journalists. On the which eliminated all the barriers on the way of free
other hand, Greenpeace is an NGO interested in flow of goods and capital throughout the world.
environmental issues. It is again monitoring and Ultimately, MNCs became institutions of foreign
reporting global environmental problems such as policy after the integration of economic issues to
pollution, global warming, protection of forests political ones.
and environmental sustainability. Greenpeace
is also organizing campaigns to increase global
3
awareness to environmental issues and threats
as well as consolidating world public opinion as Discuss the basic institutions
a pressure on national states. Similarly, Doctors of modern diplomacy
Without Borders is an NGO interested in health
problems and it is organizing campaigns about
treatment of diseases around the world. Again it
is donated by individuals, but not by states. The
number of NGOs is increasing because global
problems are getting more severe and complex.
More importantly, NGOs are taken by global
institutions like UN seriously because the issues
they focus are common problems of humanity.
Despite their limited impact on nation states,
NGOs can be regarded as institutions of foreign
policy today.
On the other hand, globalization resulted
in transformation of rules and tools of world
economy. Free flow of goods and capital through
certain channels created some companies called
MNCs eroding the jurisdiction of many states. For
example, giant companies like Apple, Microsoft,
Cargill and General Motors are controlling bigger
budgets than many states around the world.
Moreover, these companies are not managed only
from its headquarters, but dispersed their power to
different branches in many countries. Therefore,
they are not easily controlled by nation states due
to the flexibility of their structures. On the other
hand, they are binding different states through
economic activities. For example, American
company Apple produces its devices in China
and sells them to the whole world. These giant
companies make investments in foreign countries,
especially in underdeveloped or developing
countries, to their own benefit. Such countries
need foreign investments to develop, so they
grant some privileges like tax exemptions or easy
transfer of profits to the home country. As a result,
nation states lose their comparative advantage or
control over MNCs and MNCs act like pressure
groups on states. These developments stem from
expansion of the scope of foreign policy especially

124
 5
Diplomacy

Analyze the development of modern

diplomacy within the framework of
LO 1 international developments after the
formation of modern states

Origins of modern diplomacy date back to Italian city states

in the 14th and 15th centuries. Besides Renaissance in the 14th
century, Reformation which spread Europe from Germany
after the 15th century played an important role in the formation
of modern diplomacy because it accelerated the secularization

Summary
of regimes and the formation of modern states in today’s
understanding. WWI was the first global mass mobilization
and warfare in world history. More than ten million people
died and wounded throughout the world and the necessity to
establish a stable and long-lasting diplomatic system came to
the fore. After this brutal war, League of Nations was formed
in 1919 to protect world peace and security. Before WWII,
diplomatic efforts to solve crises between states did not bear
fruits, but the destruction of WWII and the Cold War between
the US and the USSR lasted more than four decades in the
shadow of nuclear arms forced states to find solutions to
international problems through diplomatic channels. The Cold
War was another turning point in the evolution of modern
diplomacy. Diplomatic institutions and instruments have been
professionalized since the beginning of the Cold War and with
the unprecedented development of globalization.

125
5
Instruments and Institutions of Modern Diplomacy

Categorize and explain the institutions

of modern diplomacy such as diplomatic
LO 2 missions, ministry of foreign affairs,
NGOs and MNCs
Summary

There are three major instruments of modern diplomacy: bilateral, multilateral and summit diplomacy.
Bilateral diplomacy is the oldest form of diplomatic practice consisting of two states meeting to solve their
problems. Its origins date back to ancient Greece, but after the 14th century, it was professionalized by the
Italian city states. Especially, after the formation of modern states in the 17th century, bilateral diplomacy
became widespread starting from Europe. The French Revolution was a turning point in the evolution
of bilateral diplomacy because secular nation states began to form and diplomacy became the main tool
in conducting inter-state relations. Until the end of WWI, bilateral diplomacy kept its hegemony in the
international relations. Bilateral diplomacy is conducted between two states, but, initially, these two states
have to recognize each other to establish diplomatic missions and carry out diplomatic practice. Recognition
means the acceptance of the existence of a state as an independent and sovereign entity in the international
arena. Recognition consists two rights of a state: domestically it has to enjoy full sovereignty over its
territories, internationally it has to be independent from any other state. On the other hand, Multilateral
diplomacy is literally defined as diplomatic relations between more than two states. It is also known as
“conference diplomacy” or “parliamentary diplomacy” because multilateral diplomatic relations are mainly
conducted through conferences and face-to-face interaction between leaders or missions of states. Its origins
go back to Vienna Congress convened in 1815 after Napoleonic Wars when European powers came up with
the idea of balance of power strategy which sustained peace in Europe until WWI. Multilateral diplomacy
became popular in the 20th century because problems between states turned into global problems such
as peace and security, environment, health, migration, etc. and international actors understood that such
problems had to be negotiated and solved through multilateral diplomacy. It is mainly conducted under the
umbrella of multilateral organizations flourished in the second half of the 20th century such as UN, NATO,
NAFTA and ASEAN. UN is the basic global instrument of multilateral diplomacy in which almost all
sovereign and independent states take part. However, instruments of multilateral diplomacy are not limited
to this global organization. International-regional organizations and functional organizations are other
instruments of multilateral diplomacy and they are categorized in terms of their missions, functions and the
level of cooperation among its members. In addition to global and international-regional organizations, ad
hoc meetings are instruments of multilateral diplomacy. Ad hoc meetings can be divided into two groups:
meetings about issues threatening peace and security and about technical issues. Meetings on peace and
security are primarily organized by international or regional powers. On the other hand, meetings about
technical issues are generally organized by the state interested in the solution of the problem and ready to
bear the expenses and administrative responsibility of the meeting. Such meetings are organized to negotiate
and, if possible, solve environmental issues, water or transportation problems between two or more states.
WWI was a turning point in the rise of summit diplomacy as a result the decrease in trust to professional
diplomats due to their inability to prevent such a global war and summit diplomacy became widespread.
Summits can be categorized into three groups: regular summits, ad hoc summits and high-level meetings.
Regular summits provide basis for negotiations, but their success is based on the frequency and duration.
Frequently organized and long meetings enable the participants to reach some conclusions and solve
problems. Ad hoc summits, on the other hand, are convened to solve specific problems or discuss specific
issues as well as to create diplomatic momentum. Lastly, high-level meetings can be defined as meetings of
leaders within the context of their official visits. Especially, newly elected leaders visit foreign countries and
meet their counterparts.

126
 5
Diplomacy

Categorize and explain the instruments

of modern diplomacy such as bilateral
LO 3 diplomacy, multilateral diplomacy and
summit diplomacy

Summary
There are two main institutions of modern diplomacy: ministry of foreign affairs and diplomatic missions.
However, with the acceleration of globalization process, some non-state actors are involved in the diplomatic
practice. Ministry of foreign affairs is the main body in the state apparatus responsible for the formulation
and implementation of foreign policy. It consists of the ministerial structure and diplomatic missions. The
first ministry of foreign affairs in today’s understanding was established in France in the 1620s by Cardinal
Richelieu after three centuries from the establishment of modern diplomatic missions. Today, ministry
of foreign affairs is mainly responsible for the coordination of foreign policy rather than formulation and
implementation of foreign policy only by itself. However, ministry of foreign affairs still plays an important
role in the implementation of foreign policy because it is the main body in the state apparatus having such
experience and professional staff in foreign policy issues. In order to effectively formulate and implement
foreign policy, memory of ministry of foreign affairs should be strong. In other words, archives have to be
regularly and systematically registered in foreign ministry. Therefore, there are certain branches responsible
for the registration, protection and maintenance of diplomatic correspondence such as agreements, reports
and letters in ministries of foreign affairs. As the branch for archives, ministries have legal branches controlling
compliance of agreements with international and domestic laws. Lastly, ministry of foreign affairs has a
political branch making proposals or warnings regarding foreign policy of a state. Political branch is an
important part of ministry in order to conduct proactive policies rather than reactive ones in such a world
changing dramatically day-by-day. Similarly, diplomatic missions are main components of diplomacy acting
on behalf of their state in the state they are accredited to. Origins of diplomatic missions go back to ad hoc
diplomacy period in which states were conducting foreign relations through temporary missions and envoys
rather than establishing resident embassies. Ad hoc diplomacy was replaced by permanent diplomacy and
its instruments and institutions as modern states began to form especially after the 14th century starting
with Italy. Functions of diplomatic missions evolved in time as dynamics, instruments and institutions of
diplomacy changed. Today, there are different levels of diplomatic representation and diplomatic missions
have several functions and immunities. Definitions, functions and immunities of diplomatic missions and
diplomats were specified and systematized by UN with the Vienna Convention, consisting 53 articles,
in 1961. Rules and principles of Vienna Convention are still valid and constitute the basis of diplomatic
relations. Lastly, globalization has blurred boundaries between nation states especially for the last three
decades. Free flow of goods, capital and especially people in a world with diminishing boundaries is regarded
as a threat to sovereignty and independence of national states because such developments cause erosion of
state’s authority. As a result of globalization process, new actors emerged such as NGOs and MNCs and the
role of these actors in international relations is regularly increasing.

127
5
Instruments and Institutions of Modern Diplomacy

1 Which one of the following is a function of a 6 What was the common instrument of
diplomatic mission? diplomacy before WWI?
a. Representing the sending State in the receiving a. Summit Diplomacy
State
b. Multilateral Diplomacy
b. Negotiating with the Government of the
receiving State c. Cyber Diplomacy
Test Yourself

c. Ascertaining by all lawful means conditions and d. Bilateral Diplomacy

developments in the receiving State, and reporting e. Conference Diplomacy
thereon to the Government of the sending State
d. Promoting friendly relations between the sending 7 Which one of the following is not an example
State and the receiving State, and developing of regular summit diplomacy?
their economic, cultural and scientific relations
e. All of them a. D-8
b. G-20
2 Which one of the following is not a part of c. ASEAN
diplomatic mission? d. Council of Europe
e. Camp David
a.Ambassador
b. Envoy
c. Deputy Minister 8 What is the name of the institution
d. Chargés d’affaires established after WWII to provide peace and
e. Minister security in the world?
a. League of Nations
3 Which one of the following is not a part of b. NATO
diplomatic privileges? c. Warsaw Pact
d. United Nations
a. Premises of mission
b. Commercial activities for personal interests e. European Union
c. Archives and documents of mission
d. Packages of mission 9 What was the turning point in the formation
e. Taxes levied from mission of multilateral diplomacy?
a. Westphalia Treaty (1648)
4 Where was the first professional ministry of b. Berlin Congress (1878)
foreign affairs established? c. Vienna Congress (1815)
a. France d. Paris Peace Conference (1919)
b. The Great Britain e. San Francisco Conference (1945)
c. Germany
d. Italy 10 Which one of the following is not one of the
e. The United States international regional institutions?
a. Arab League
5 What is the name of department conducting b. Commonwealth
foreign relations of the United States?
c. ASEAN
a. Ministry of Foreign Affairs d. European Council
b. Foreign Office e. NATO
c. State Department
d. Foreign Ministry
e. Office of Foreign Relations

128
 5
Diplomacy

1. e If your answer is incorrect, review 6. d If your answer is incorrect, review “Bilateral

“Diplomatic Missions” Diplomacy ”

2. c If your answer is incorrect, review 7. e If your answer is incorrect, review “Summit

“Diplomatic Missions” Diplomacy ”

Answer Key for “Test Yourself”

3. b If your answer is incorrect, review 8. d If your answer is incorrect, review
“Diplomatic Missions” “Multilateral Diplomacy”

4. a If your answer is incorrect, review 9. c If your answer is incorrect, review “

“Ministry of Foreign Affairs” Multilateral Diplomacy”

5. c If your answer is incorrect, review 10. e If your answer is incorrect, review “Summit
“Ministry of Foreign Affairs” Diplomacy”

Discuss the international developments shaped the

institutions and instruments of modern diplomacy?

Suggested Answers for “Your Turn”

Besides Renaissance in the 14th century, Reformation which spread Europe from
Germany after the 15th century played an important role in the formation of
modern diplomacy because it accelerated the secularization of regimes and the
formation of modern states in today’s understanding. WWI was the first global
mass mobilization and warfare in world history. More than ten million people died
and wounded throughout the world and the necessity to establish a stable and long-
lasting diplomatic system came to the fore. After this brutal war, League of Nations
your turn 1 was formed in 1919 to protect world peace and security as well as to solve inter-
state problems through diplomatic channels. Before WWII, diplomatic efforts
to solve crises between states did not bear fruits, but the destruction of WWII
and the Cold War between the US and the USSR lasted more than four decades
in the shadow of nuclear arms forced states to find solutions to international
problems through diplomatic channels. The Cold War was another turning point
in the evolution of modern diplomacy. Diplomatic institutions and instruments
have been professionalized since the beginning of the Cold War and with the
unprecedented development of globalization.

129
5
Instruments and Institutions of Modern Diplomacy

Discuss the basic instruments of modern

diplomacy

There are three basic instruments of modern diplomacy: bilateral diplomacy,

multilateral diplomacy and summit diplomacy. Bilateral diplomacy is the oldest
form of diplomatic practice consisting of two states meeting to solve their
Suggested Answers for “Your Turn”

problems. Its origins date back to ancient Greece, but after the 14th century, it
was professionalized by the Italian city states. Especially, after the formation of
modern states in the 17th century, bilateral diplomacy became widespread starting
from Europe. The French Revolution was a turning point in the evolution of
bilateral diplomacy because secular nation states began to form and diplomacy
became the main tool in conducting inter-state relations. Until the end of WWI,
bilateral diplomacy kept its hegemony in the international relations. Multilateral
diplomacy is literally defined as diplomatic relations between more than two states.
It is also known as “conference diplomacy” or “parliamentary diplomacy” because
your turn 2 multilateral diplomatic relations are mainly conducted through conferences and
face-to-face interaction between leaders or missions of states. Its origins go back to
Vienna Congress convened in 1815 after Napoleonic Wars when European powers
came up with the idea of balance of power strategy which sustained peace in Europe
until WWI. Multilateral diplomacy became popular in the 20th century because
problems between states turned into global problems. Summit diplomacy traces
back to Middle Ages when the territories of monarchs were regarded as their own
properties. In order to solve their problems or develop their relations, monarchs
were meeting regularly. (İskit, 334-335) With the formation of modern nation
states, the decline of monarchies and the establishment of modern diplomatic
missions, diplomatic practices began to be carried out by professionals. However,
WWI was a turning point in the rise of summit diplomacy as a result the decrease
in trust to professional diplomats due to their inability to prevent such a global war
and summit diplomacy became widespread..

130
 5
Diplomacy

Discuss the basic institutions of modern diplomacy

Basic institutions of modern diplomacy can be divided into two categories: state
actors such as ministry of foreign affairs and diplomatic missions and non-state
actors such as NGOs and MNCs. Ministry of foreign affairs is the main body in

Suggested Answers for “Your Turn”

the state apparatus responsible for the formulation and implementation of foreign
policy. It consists of the ministerial structure and diplomatic missions. Ministry of
foreign affairs is mainly responsible for the coordination of foreign policy rather
than formulation and implementation of foreign policy only by itself. However,
ministry of foreign affairs still plays an important role in the implementation
of foreign policy because it is the main body in the state apparatus having such
experience and professional staff in foreign policy issues. In the same vein, ministry
of foreign affairs is responsible for establishment of diplomatic missions in foreign
countries as well as recruitment and training of diplomatic personnel. Diplomatic
missions are main components of diplomacy acting on behalf of their state in
the state they are accredited to. Origins of diplomatic missions go back to ad
your turn 3 hoc diplomacy period in which states were conducting foreign relations through
temporary missions and envoys rather than establishing resident embassies. Today,
there are different levels of diplomatic representation and diplomatic missions
have several functions and immunities. Definitions, functions and immunities of
diplomatic missions and diplomats were specified and systematized by UN with
the Vienna Convention, consisting 53 articles, in 1961. Rules and principles of
Vienna Convention are still valid and constitute the basis of diplomatic relations.
Globalization has blurred boundaries between nation states especially for the last
three decades. Free flow of goods, capital and especially people in a world with
diminishing boundaries is regarded as a threat to sovereignty and independence of
national states because such developments cause erosion of state’s authority. This
trend has some repercussions in foreign policy and implementation because the
state and its institutions are not the only authority influencing states’ foreign policy.
As a result of globalization process, new actors emerged such as NGOs and MNCs
and the role of these actors in international relations is regularly increasing.

131
5
Instruments and Institutions of Modern Diplomacy

References
Anderson, Matthew Smith. The Rise of Modern Leguey-Feilleux, Jean Robert. The Dynamics of
Diplomacy. New York: Longman, 1993. Diplomacy. Boulder: Lynne Rienner Publishers,
2009.
Barston, R.P. Modern Diplomacy. London: Longman,
1988. Macomber, William. The Angels’ Game: A Handbook
of Modern Diplomacy. New York: Stein and Day,
Berridge, G.R. Diplomacy: Theory and Practice. New
1975.
York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2015.
Martin, Lawrence. Diplomacy in Modern European
Berridge, G.R. A Dictionary of Diplomacy. New York:
History. New York: Macmillan, 1966.
Palgrave, 2001.
Mattingly, Garrett. Renaissance Diplomacy. New York:
Bull, Hedley. The Anarchical Society. London:
Dover Publications, 1988.
Macmillan, 1977.
Melissen, Jan. The New Public Diplomacy: Soft Power
Dunn, D.H. (ed). Diplomacy at the Highest Level: The
in International Relations. Basingstoke: Palgrave
Evolution of International Summitry. Basingstoke:
Macmillan, 2007.
Macmillan, 1996.
Morgenthau, Hans J. Politics Among Nations. New
Eban, Abba. The New Diplomacy: International Affairs
York: Knopf, 1978.
in the Modern Age. New York: Random House,
1983. Nicolson, Harold. Diplomacy. London: Oxford
University Press, 1963.
Evans, Peter (ed). Double Edged Diplomacy:
International Bargaining and Domestic Politics. Pilshke, Elmer (ed). Modern Diplomacy. Washington:
Berkeley: University of California Press, 1993. American Enterprise Institute, 1979.
Freeman, Chas W. Arts of Power: Statecraft and Sidy, Richard V. World Diplomacy. Arizona: SNS
Diplomacy. Washington: US Institute of Peace Press, 1992.
Press, 1997.
Siracusa, Joseph. Diplomacy: A Very Short Introduction.
George, Alexander. The Limits of Coercive Diplomacy. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010.
Boulder: Westview Press, 1994.
Trevelyan, Humphrey. Diplomatic Channels. London:
Hamilton, Keith and Richard Langhorne. The Macmillan, 1973.
Practice of Diplomacy: Its Evolution, Theory and
Watson, Adam. Diplomacy: The Dialogue Between
Administration. New York: Routledge, 1995.
States. London: Routledge, 1984.
Hocking, Brian. (ed). Foreign Ministries: Change and
Adaptation. New York: Palgrave, 1999.
İskit, Temel. Diplomasi: Tarihi, Teorisi ve Kurumları.
İstanbul: İstanbul Bilgi Üniversitesi Yayınları,
2007.
Kissinger, Henry. Diplomacy. New York: Simon &
Schuster’s, 1999.

132
 Diplomacy of the
Chapter 6 Republic of Turkey
Learning Outcomes: After completing this chapter,
you will be able to:
Learning Outcomes

1 2
Distinguish the actors, processes and tools of
Comprehend the dynamics of Turkish Turkish Diplomacy as they have evolved since
Diplomacy in a categorical way the foundation of the Turkish Republic

Chapter Outline Key Terms

Introduction Republic Of Turkey
Theorizing Turkish Diplomacy and Foreign Diplomacy
Policy Foreign Policy
Actors, Processes and Tools of Turkish Ottoman Legacy
Diplomacy Ataturk’s Legacy
Westernization
Turkey’s Relations With Nato as a Case Study Geography
Conclusion Instruments Of Diplomacy
NATO

134

Diplomacy
INTRODUCTION
As a middle-sized country and having
a significant geopolitical location, Turkey’s
diplomatic and foreign policy practices merit
closer attention. Which factors do shape Turkey’s
diplomatic actions? What are the characteristics of
Turkish diplomacy? Which actors are influential
in shaping Turkey’s foreign policy interests and
diplomatic practices? How is diplomacy conducted
in Turkey? Which particular instruments are
employed in the exercise of Turkish diplomacy?
Which issues have been important in Turkey’s
diplomatic history since the foundation of the
Republic. These are some of the questions that this
chapter tries to answer.
THEORIZING TURKISH
DIPLOMACY AND FOREIGN
POLICY
This section aims at offering a theoretical
analysis of the factors that have shaped Turkey’s
diplomatic and foreign policy practices since the
foundation of the Republic in 1923 up to now.
Structural Factors
In this section, the factors that have produced
long-term impact on Turkish diplomacy will be
examined from a comparative perspective. These
are the factors that do not change easily from
time to time, and offer a particular contextual
environment in which Turkish decision makers
tend to interpret external developments (Aydin,
2010, 152-186). Their impact is deep and they are
well internalized by diplomatic elites and people
alike. Structural factors have a lasting impact on
Turkey’s diplomacy and foreign policy.
Ottoman Legacy
The first legacy that the rulers of the Turkish
republic inherited from the Ottoman past is that
the state is the main diplomatic and security actor.
National security and foreign policy interests have
long been defined from the perspective of the
state. There is a strong state tradition in Turkey
(Heper, 1985). State is the main actor that
provides security; state elites define which issues
should be considered as security issues; security
interests are defined in reference to the survival
6
and well-being of the state. For a long time,
the prevailing understanding was that issues of
diplomacy, foreign policy and national security
were so much existential and vital that they should
not be left to the discretion of the politicians who
only think how they can win upcoming elections
and remain in power. State elites would, on the
other hand, put national interests at the center of
their behaviors and approach vitally important
issues from the perspective of state.
Turkey has also inherited the ‘Sevres syndrome’
from the Ottoman Empire, according to which
Turkey is defined as the crown jewel in geopolitical
power struggles among external actors. Turkey is
surrounded by enemies that would never hesitate to
make use of any opportunity to dictate their terms
on Turkey as well as to dismember this county.
A strong dose of siege mentality exists among
Turkish people. Turkish decision makers tend to
perceive Turkey’s neighbors to all directions as the
pawns in the hands of great powers, which would
likely use them as leverage in their relations with
Turkey. The facts that many neighbors of Turkey
gained their independence from the Ottoman
Empire and they were very much assisted by
external great powers in their efforts seem to have
led Turkish decision makers feel suspicious of
Turkey’s neighbors. Hence, there are adages such
as ‘water sleeps but enemy never sleeps’ and ‘if you
want peace prepare for war’.
Another aspect of the Ottoman legacy is
that diplomatic and foreign policy issues need to
be dealt with secretly and behind closed doors.
Open discussion of such issues before the public
is generally seen as risky. Diplomatic issues require
expertise. For a long time, only the state elites nested
in bureaucracy were assumed to have possessed this
expertise. The participation of civil society and non-
state actors in the formulation of Turkey’s foreign
policy interests has been quite limited compared to
liberal democratic countries in the West. Diplomacy
has always been the privilege of state elites in Turkey.
It is during the process of Europeanization and
democratization that civil society has finally begun
to acquire an important role in Turkish diplomacy.
It is now the case that both elected politicians are
more knowledgeable than before about foreign
policy and diplomatic issues and think tanks have
mushroomed as institutional platforms offering
expert-help to decision makers.
135
6
Figure 6.1 Francis Smith, The Grand Vizier Giving
Audience to the English Ambassador, c.1760 (picture
from Wikimedia Commons)
Source: http://ottomaneuropeandiplomacy.blogspot.
com.tr/2013/12/welcome.html
Turkish rulers have also inherited an imperial
mentality from the Ottoman era in that Turkey has
long been seen as the continuation of the Empire.
The imperial mentality also manifests itself in
the way how Turkish rulers interact with their
counterparts in other countries. Turkish rulers tend
to speak with foreigners as if today’s Turkey is the
Ottoman Empire of the sixteenth century. Longing
for respect, equality and status very much shapes
Turkey’s relations with much powerful countries.
Imperial mentality also suggests that Turkey holds
itself responsible for the well-being of people living
in the post-Ottoman geography. The practice of
defining Turkey as a responsible diplomatic actor
that should contribute to the solution of regional
and global humanitarian, developmental and
security problems has strengthened during the reign
of Justice and Development Party governments
since 2002. The imperial mentality seems to have
made itself appear in the foreign policy discourse
of the AKP era politicians. For example, former
Prime Minster Ahmet Davutoglu quite often said
that the scope of Turkish diplomacy is global and
Turkey should act as an order-creator country in its
environment. The circles that see Turkey through
imperial eyes find it difficult to understand that
the Republic of Turkey constitutes a break with the
Ottoman past.
Another legacy of the Ottoman years is that the
alternative ideologies and strategies that had once
come to the agenda in late 19th century with a view
136
Diplomacy of the Republic of Turkey
to ensuring the survival of the Ottoman Empire -
namely pan-Turkism, pan-Ottomanism and pan-
Islamisim - have continued to influence Turkey’s
diplomatic practices during the Republican era.
Despite the fact that the founding rulers of the
Turkish Republic discarded all adventurist strategies
from the lexicon of state and heavily invested in
Turkish nationalism, all the ‘isms’ mentioned have
continued to be influential in coming decades.
Another legacy of the Ottoman Empire is the
idea that Turkey would not be able to achieve
its national interests if the gains of the wars won
on battlefields were not legitimized through
diplomatic negotiations. Securing military victories
on battlefields would not accrue benefits to Turkey,
should they not be entrenched through diplomacy.
In this context, Turkish diplomacy is quite sensitive
on the issue of legitimizing Turkey’s war efforts or
other foreign policy interests through international
law. Securing legitimacy in the eyes of international
public opinion through the successful employment
of international law has always been important in
Turkish diplomacy. Hence, the strong international
law tradition in the institutional structure of the
Ministry of Foreign Affairs.
Turkey’s defensive realpolitik security culture
has also been decisively shaped by the Ottoman era
experiences (Karaosmanoglu, 2000, 199-216). Since
the beginning of the Republic, Turkey’s diplomatic
efforts have aimed at protecting Turkey’s territorial
integrity, national sovereignty and societal cohesion.
The number one national security interest has been
to preserve Turkey’s gains and ensure that Turkey
survives as an independent sovereign country.
Maximalist and irredentist claims have never shaped
Turkey’s republican era diplomatic initiatives. As
a middle power, Turkish diplomatic and security
initiatives aim at reading the external developments
right and taking the most appropriate measures
in responding to them. In case Turkey’s internal
capabilities lacked, Turkish rulers did their best to
secure the cooperation of external actors against
common enemies. The idea of playing great powers
off against each other is quite strong in Turkey.
Balance of powers politics has shaped Turkish
diplomacy since the early 1920s. Signing strategic
cooperation agreements with Britain and France on
the eve of the World War II and joining NATO in
1952 should be understood as Turkey’s efforts to
achieve its security interests through alliance politics.

Diplomacy
Westernization
Westernization is a very important structural
variable of Turkish foreign policy.
Since the second half of the nineteenth
century Turkey’s efforts to join the key Western/
European international organizations, viz.
external Westernization, has gone hand in hand
with the transformation process at home in
line with the constitutive norms and values of
Western international community, viz. internal
Westernization.
Westernization is also thought of a security
strategy in that Turkey would feel itself safe and
secure if it came closer to the West/Europe and its
Western/European identity were recognized as such
by Westerners/Europeans (Oğuzlu, 2003, 285-
299). Given that the Ottoman Empire came to an
end at the hands of the Western European nations,
the founding fathers of the Republic assumed that
Turkey’s security would improve, if Europeans
saw Turkey as a member of the Western/European
family of nations.
This process has both negative and positive
connotations in the context of Turkish diplomatic
history. Turks love and hate Westerners
simultaneously. The negative experiences of the
Ottoman past would assumingly be left behind
if Turkey completed its Westernization process.
However, whenever Westerners/Europeans
questioned the credentials of Turkey’s Western
identity, the dominant view on the part of the
majority of Turks happened to be that Westerners
did never and would never recognize Turkey as
Western/European. For example, the reluctance of
Europeans to admit Turkey to EU membership has
generally been interpreted as the continuation of
the traditional European attitude towards Turkey,
according to which Turks have been among the
constitutive others of Europeans.
All in all, Turkey’s membership in NATO since
1952 and the ongoing accession negotiations
with the European Union are now the most
important dimensions of Turkish foreign policy.
Westernization has also manifested itself in
Turkey’s efforts to side with the US-led Western
international community against the Soviet Union
during the Cold War era. Claiming to represent
the Western world in its regional environment and
playing an active role in the promotion of Western/
European values onto non-Western geographies
6
in its close proximity has constituted one of the
hallmarks of Turkish diplomatic culture. Despite
all kind of problems experienced in relations with
Western/European nations, particularly during the
post-Cold war era, Turkey’s Westernization process
is still on and membership in NATO is seen vital
to the fulfillment of Turkey’s national security
interests. Many other foreign policy alternatives
have mostly come to the agenda whenever
Turkey’s relations with Western/European nations
deteriorated. For example, the growing crisis in
relations with the United States during the course
of the developments associated with the so-called
Arab Spring seems to partially account for Turkey’s
coming closer to Russia and Iran. Similarly, at times
of tension in Turkey’s relations with the European
Union, the idea of Eurasianism tends to become
popular among Turkey’s strategic elites.
Ataturk’s Legacy
To Mustafa Kemal Ataturk, the founder of the
Republic, and his comrades in arms, Turkey’s number
one national interest during the 1920s and 1930s
was to protect the newly gained independence and
sovereignty as well as successfully completing the
radical transformation process at home (Hale, 2013,
31055). This required the pursuit of a pragmatic,
prudent and realist foreign policy, enshrining the
principle of ‘peace at home peace in the world’.
Turkish rulers tried to help bring into existence
a stable and cooperative regional environment
so that developments outside the borders would
never have negative consequences on the ongoing
modernization and development processes at home.
In this sense, there seems to exist a strong degree
of continuity between Turkey’s efforts to support
regional cooperation during the interwar years
through the Balkan Entente and Saadabad Pact and
the attempts of the Justice and Development Party
governments at encouraging regional cooperation
initiatives over the last fifteen years.
Pragmatism also suggested that Turkey would
do well to construct friendly relations with former
enemies. Involvement in the internal affairs of other
states and pursuit of expansionist and irredentist
foreign policies do not hold any place in Ataturk’s
diplomatic legacy. This is the main reason why
any attempt at regime change abroad is very much
criticized at home. Traditional Turkish diplomacy
is based on the idea that states are independent
137
6
in their internal affairs and Turkey should not
be involved in the business of regime change or
value promotion. Trying to solve national security
problems through diplomacy and international
law is another legacy of Ataturk. The revision of
the Lasuanne regulations on the status of Turkish
Straits through the Montreaux Convention in
1936, the incorporation of Hatay region into
Turkey in 1939, and the settlement of the Mousul
question and the border dispute with Iraq in 1926
are all examples to the use of international law and
diplomacy in Turkish foreign policy. Diplomacy
backed by hard power capability and diplomatic
initiatives conferring legitimacy on military
victories constitute the backbone of Ataturk’s
diplomatic legacy.
Figure 6.2 King Edward VIII and President Kemal
Atatürk
Source: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:King_
Edward_VIII_and_President_Kemal_Atat%C3%BCrk.jpg
Figure 6.3
Source: http://www.mfa.gov.tr/default.en.mfa
1 potential contribution to European security. Hence,
Comment on Ataturk’s Legacy
in Turkish Foreign Policy
138
Diplomacy of the Republic of Turkey
Geography is the Destiny
Turkey’s geographical location has always been
the most important leverage in Turkey’s relations
with other countries. Despite the danger of
exaggerating ‘geographical determinism’, it would
not be wrong to argue that Turkey’s diplomatic
relations and foreign policy record during much
of the Republican era have been deeply informed
by Turkey’s geography (Aydin, 2003, 163-184).
Turkey’s geography has been both an asset and
liability. Turkey’s decision to join NATO as well
as being in the crosshairs of global powers can
be convincingly attributed to its geographical
location. Being located at the intersection point of
three continents, Turkey has continuously attracted
the attention of other countries, notably the great
powers which have had vital security interests in
Turkey’s regional environment.
The United States defined Turkey as the
unsinkable aircraft carrier during the Cold War.
The Soviet Union wanted to get control of the
straits and eastern part of Anatolia in the immediate
aftermath of the World War II and this prompted
Turkey to seek security cooperation with the United
States. Turkey joined NATO in 1952 to deal with
the Soviet challenge much better. Turkey’s efforts
to become an energy hub during the post-Cold
War era are noticeable. In its effort to convince the
Europeans to the idea of Turkey’s membership in the
European Union, Turkish rulers have continuously
instrumentalized Turkey’s geographical location as
a bargaining chip. Turkey’s geography has recently
come to the agenda in the context of the migration
crisis engulfing European countries. The migration
deal that Turkey signed with the European Union
in the spring of 2016 is very much the function
of Turkey’s peculiar geography in the context of
European efforts to stem the refugee flow emanating
from the Greater Middle Eastern region. The main
reason why the island of Cyprus occupies a very
important place in Turkish foreign policy is Cyprus’s
geographical proximity to Anatolian peninsula
as well as the recent discovery of rich natural gas
resources in Eastern Mediterranean.
The reason why Europeans could not easily give
up on Turkey can also be boiled down to Turkey’s
Turkey is mainly characterized as a buffer-zone
and insulator country by Europeans. Underlining
Turkey’s potential contribution to the protection

Diplomacy
of the Kantian security environment inside the EU
against the security challenges emanating from the
Hobbesian security environment in the Middle
East has decisively colored Turkey’s discourse with
Western/European countries. Depiction of Turkey
as a ‘bridge’ and ‘role model’ by Westerners does
also relate to Turkey’s geographical location.
Turkey’s geography does also suggest that
Turkey should always be alerted to potential threats
posed to its security as well as maintaining strong
and credible armed forces. Of all the reasons of
military’s key role in Turkish diplomacy, the need
to have a powerful army in this fragile and delicate
geographical location proves to be decisive.
Temporal and Conjectural Factors
In addition to the structural factors, Turkish
diplomacy and foreign policy has also been
informed by the confluence of some conjectural
factors which tend to have short term impact on
how Turkey’s diplomatic practices have unfolded
since the early 1920s. This section examines the
impact of such conjectural factors as the shift in
the structure of international system and political
ideologies of ruling elites at different times (Aydin,
2003, 103-139).
International System
Depending on the structure of international
system at different time periods, Turkish foreign
policy interests, security definitions, alliance
relationships, maneuvering capability and
diplomatic practices evinced variations. The time
period between 1923 and 1939 had a multipolar
international and regional environment with none
of the great powers having the ability to set the course
of international developments, let alone imposing
its will on to others through unilateral and coercive
means. During this period, Turkey’s maneuvering
capability was high and Turkey pursued a multi-
directional foreign policy (Barlas, 2005, 441-
464). Developing closer economic and strategic
relations with the communist Soviet Union went
hand in hand with establishing friendly cooperative
relations with Western European powers. Turkey’s
regional activism was also noticeable in the Balkans
and the Middle East. The formation of Balkan
Entente in 1934 and the Saadabad Pact in 1937
became possible through Turkish diplomatic
6
efforts. Despite the fact that Turkey had just left
behind its war of independence and its material
power capabilities were not match of key regional
and global powers, the multipolar character of
the international system presented Ankara with
opportunities to muddle through its way.
Figure 6.4 Joint Stamps of the Balkan Pact İssued By
İts Member States
Source: https://www.google.com.tr/search?q=Balkan+
Entente+in+1934&dcr=0&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=
X&ved=0ahUKEwi3sYyi2ujZAhVLb5oKHV3RAvMQ_AU
ICigB&biw=1280&bih=683#imgrc=1i1gagjDKAaXgM:&s
pf=1520923691069
During the Second World War, Turkey
continued the multi-directional foreign policy
stance of the interwar period and pursued the so-
called active neutrality foreign policy (Vanderlippe,
2003, 63-80). Rather than siding with one side of
the warring parties, Turkey tried to benefit from
the geopolitical rivalries between the axis powers
on the one hand and the allied countries on the
other.
The time period between 1945 and 1960
corresponds to a bipolar international structure
and a high level confrontation between the US-
led Western liberal democratic countries and the
communist countries of the Soviet block. Turkey
felt itself under Soviet threat and wanted to join the
Western international community in such a way to
counterbalance the existential threat to the north.
Following its admission to NATO and given the
increasing tension between the two power blocks,
Turkey had to pursue a predominantly pro-Western
foreign policy course. The rigid atmosphere of the
early Cold War years did not offer Turkey the ability
139
6
to adopt neutrality and pursue an independent/non-
aligned foreign policy course. Turkey’s maneuvering
capability was extremely limited during this era.
For about twenty years between 1960 and
1980, Turkey shifted to a more multi-directional
and multi-dimensional foreign policy stance as the
so-called détente caused a softening of the bipolar
confrontation between Western and eastern blocks
(Hale, 2013, 104-134). Turkish rulers came to
the conclusion that the pursuit of extremely pro-
Western foreign policy stance of the previous era
did not yield expected benefits. As the United
States and the Soviet Union began to search for
ways to live in peaceful co-existence, Turkey felt
more capable of charting its own ways through
regional activism.
During the 1980s, Turkey had to discover
the importance of the strategic relations with the
Western world once again as the change of regime
Iran and the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan
increased the tension between the two blocks. The
second arrival of the Cold War era confrontation
helped increase Turkey’s geopolitical significance
in Western eyes. During the 1980s, Turkey
predominantly followed a pro-Western foreign
policy stance despite the emergence of some
problems in relations with Western countries.
Turkey’s maneuvering capability in its foreign
policy radically improved with the dissolution of
the Soviet Union and the end of the Cold War. No
longer feeling the pressure to the north, Turkey
could pursue active and assertive policies in the
Balkans, Caucasus, Central Asia and Middle East.
Even though the evaporation of the Soviet threat
contributed to the erosion of the strategic bond
between Turkey and its Western allies, membership
in NATO and the prospective membership in
European Union preserved their primacy in
Turkey’s strategic thinking. The pro-Western stance
in Turkish foreign policy was also enabled by the
US-led unipolar structure of the international
system, the growing appeal of the constitutive
norms of the Western international community as
well as the perception of Turkey in the West as a
successful role model for the countries that regained
their independence in the post-Soviet geography.
The 1990s could be seen as a period in which
Turkey tried to strike a balance between pursuing a
more independent/multidirectional foreign policy
stance on the one hand and increasing its efforts
140
Diplomacy of the Republic of Turkey
to solidify its presence in the Western international
community on the other. While the end of the Cold
War seems to have increased Turkey’s maneuvering
capability, the gradual erosion of Turkey’s strategic
value in the eyes of Western/European allies absent
the common communism threat pushed Turkish
leaders to help reassert Turkey’s Western/European
identity through NATO and the European Union.
The shift to a more multipolar system over
the last decade, particularly following the global
financial crisis in 2008, and the spectacular
increase in Turkey’s material power capabilities
seem to have encouraged Turkish rulers to follow
a more multi-directional and multi-dimensional
foreign policy stance. During this era, Turkey has
been in search for more strategic autonomy (Öniş
and Yılmaz, 2009, 7-24). The relative decline of
Western powers, the questioning of the Western
model across the globe, the concomitant rise of
non-Western powers in global politics and the
onset of the Arab Spring seem to have all caused
a shift of axis in Turkish foreign policy away from
the West to the East. Turkey acting as a ‘central
country’ and pursuing a ‘Eurasianist’ foreign policy
stance became quite visible during this era.
Political Ideologies
Since the establishment of the Republic until
now, Turkey has been ruled by different political
parties, each holding onto different political
ideologies. Despite the fact that structural factors
have to a significant extent curtailed their ability
to set the course of Turkish foreign policy in line
with their distinctive political ideology, they have
nevertheless had the opportunity to reflect their
ideologies on Turkey’s diplomatic choices. Of all
the alternative political ideologies, center-of-right,
center-of-left, Turkish nationalism and political
Islam stand out most.
Center-of-right parties have most of the time
supported Turkey’s pro-Western and pro-European
foreign policy orientation. Believing in the virtues
of free market economy and liberal democracy,
such parties have found many things in common
with their counterparts in Western countries. It
is during their tenure in government that Turkey
joined NATO, applied for membership in the
European Union, joined the Customs Union with
the European Union and strengthened strategic,
military and economic cooperation with Western

Diplomacy
countries. These parties are pro-secular in terms of
their political persuasion, yet are in peace with the
traditional and conservative values of the Turkish
society.
Center-of-left parties are also pro-Western
and pro-European in terms of their foreign policy
orientation, yet compared to center-of-right parties
they proved to be more predisposed to the idea
that a multi-directional foreign policy orientation
would better serve Turkey’s national interests
(Celep, 2011, 423-434). These parties have been
more sensitive than center-of-right parties in
preserving Turkey’s secular identity and unitary
state character. This might partially explain why
they appear to have condoned various military
coups undertaken in the name of preserving the
constitute values of the Turkish Republic.
Turkish nationalist parties have on the other
hand adopted a soft-skeptic approach towards
Turkey’s relations with Western countries both
bilaterally and institutionally (Avcı, 2011,
435-447). They have been in favor of Turkey’s
membership in NATO and the European Union,
yet questioned the logic of the institutional
relations if they would dilute Turkey’s strong state
identity, societal cohesion, territorial integrity
and national sovereignty. In the context of
Turkey’s aspirations to join the European Union,
many Turkish nationalists have demonstrated a
strong reluctance to fulfill the EU’s post-modern
membership criteria. On the other hand, many
Turkish nationalists have adopted the romantic
idea of bringing into existence a league of Turkish/
Turkic states under Turkey’s leadership and
improving all sorts of relations with Turkic nations
located in the post-Soviet geography. Turkish
nationalists also argue for strengthening strategic,
economic and political relations with non-Western
global and regional states, such as Russia, China
and Iran. Eurasianism as a foreign policy discourse
is quite popular among Turkish nationalists.
Political Islamists, compared to all other
ideologies mentioned above, question the dynamics
of Turkey’s relations with Western countries and
argue that Turkey should not try to join Western
institutions. Turkey is different from Western
countries on religious, historical, cultural and
civilizational grounds and the inherent differences
between the parties would never allow Turkey to
6
be a member of the European Union (İçener and
Çağlıyan-İçener, 2011, 19-34). Instead, Turkey
should put its Islamic identity at the center of its
foreign policy and try to help arouse a common
Islamic consciousness among Muslim countries.
Political Islamists are the most ardent supporters
of the idea that Turkey should pursue regional
hegemony in the Middle East.
Figure 6.5
Source: http://www.mfa.gov.tr/aciklamalar-genel.
tr.mfa
ACTORS, PROCESSES
AND TOOLS OF TURKISH
DIPLOMACY
The government is the main actor in charge
of defining Turkey’s foreign policy interests and
diplomatic goals. Constitutionally speaking, it is
the elected representatives of the Turkish people
that have the final authority to determine Turkey’s
foreign policy orientation. Despite the primacy
of elected civilians in this process, the appointed
bureaucrats in state administration have long
played the most decisive role. Bureaucrats in the
Ministry of Foreign Affairs and National Security
Council and the high level generals in the military
were more influential than elected civilians in the
government. The governments that were formed in
the aftermath of military coups did not have the
confidence to challenge the privileged position of
state elites/security establishment in this context. It
is with the reign of Justice and Development party
governments that the process of civilianization in
Turkish foreign policy has begun to take strong
roots. Many key foreign policy decisions since the
early 2000s have been taken by the elected politicians
and high level bureaucrats in state administration
have been relegated to advisory roles.
Foreign policy decision making process in
Turkey is now both centralized and civilianized.
The input of public opinion is traditionally limited,
yet recent decades have witnessed that governments
have increasingly taken into account the potential
141
6
consequences of foreign policy decisions on
domestic politics. The question of how foreign
policy choices affect the legitimacy and internal
standing of political parties, most importantly the
party/ies in government, has become extremely
important. Conducting foreign policy with
domestic policy motivations has now become a
norm and this attest to the growing importance of
public opinion in foreign policy making process.
As of today, Turkey has more than 200
diplomatic missions all around globe. While
ambassadorial missions deal with diplomatic and
political issues, consulates are in charge of dealing
with social, cultural and similar problems of
Turkish people living in other countries. While
many embassies are located in the capital city of
other countries conducting official diplomatic
relations between Turkey and the country in which
they are located, some embassies represent Turkey
in international organizations, such as the United
Nations, European Union and NATO. Recent
years have seen that Turkish ambassadors were
appointed to high positions in many international
organizations. The point worth underlining in this
context is that Turkey has recently opened many
diplomatic missions in Africa and other far distant
places. This shows that Turkish diplomacy has now
gained a global vision and scope.
Turkey’s strong military power capability
constitutes the most important source of Turkish
diplomacy. Unless buttressed by military power
capability in the background, diplomatic
initiatives might not yield positive results in the
anarchical environment of international relations.
Deployment of Turkish military units outside
Turkish boundaries has in recent years improved
Turkey’s ability to score diplomatic gains against its
contenders. Another crucial point to underline in
this context is that as Turkish military capability
were to become of more Turkish origin, the more
leverage Turkey would have in its diplomatic
interactions with its contenders and rivals. This
seems to account for why Turkish governments have
recently increased investment in the development
of national defense-industry.
The employment of civilian and soft power
instruments in Turkish diplomacy has also become
noticeable in recent years (Oğuzlu, 2007, 81-97).
Since the time Turkey began to intensify its effort to
become a part of the ongoing globalization process
142
Diplomacy of the Republic of Turkey
and opening itself to the world, businessmen
came to the fore as important actors in Turkish
foreign policy. Through their organizations, they
lobby Turkish governments in order to ensure that
their economic interests be taken into account in
the formulation and implementation of Turkey’s
foreign interests. Many high level state visits that
Turkish decision makers regularly pay to other
countries show that sizeable groups of businessmen
accompany Turkish leaders. Improving economic
relations with multiple countries across the
globe and contributing to the strengthening of
interdependent commercial relations between
Turkey and other countries have already become
one of the most important tools of Turkish
diplomatic practices in recent years.
Desecuritization of bilateral relations with
neighboring countries (Aras and Polat, 2008,
495-515), particularly with the ones located in
the Middle East; helping bring into existence
EU-like regional integration mechanisms in its
region; investing in multilateral problems in
its effort to find solutions to regional problems;
taking ‘mediatory and facilitation initiatives’ in
the solution of disputes between other countries’
and intensifying the social and cultural exchanges
with other countries in social, cultural, tourism
and educational levels all now shape Turkish
diplomatic practices decisively.
Improving Turkey’s positive image in the eyes of
other countries does also constitute an important
part of Turkish diplomatic efforts in recent
years. Investing in public diplomacy initiatives,
transforming the Turkish Airlines into one of the
largest air-carriers all over the world, founding
the English language TRT-World, redesigning the
TRT as a multi-lingual broadcasting company,
increasing humanitarian and development aids
to poor and needy countries (Çelik and İşeri,
2016, 429-448), and establishing particular state
institutions in charge of dealing with the problems
of Turkish-origin people in the countries which
host sizable Turkish communities can all be
considered as important soft power initiatives.
2
What kind of soft and civilian power
instruments are employed in Turkey’s
diplomatic practices abroad?

Diplomacy
TURKEY’S RELATIONS WITH
NATO AS A CASE STUDY
Because space limitations does not allow to
undertake a detailed analysis of the issues that
have occupied the diplomacy of the Republic of
Turkey since the early 1920s, this section discusses
the dynamics of Turkish diplomacy with respect to
NATO as a case study.
Turkey has been one of the most important
members of NATO since its accession to the
Alliance in 1952. Having defined for many years
its foreign, defense and security policies on the
basis of NATO membership, Turkey began to
adopt a more questioning and critical perspective
towards the Alliance with the end of the Cold
War. Although NATO continues to maintain its
importance in Turkish foreign and security policy
thinking, it would be wrong to suggest that this
is at the same level as it was during the Cold War
era. Some public opinion polls show that not many
people in Turkey consider NATO membership
as essential for the security of the country. Even
though elite groups maintain their commitment
to NATO, there is a rising skeptical approach in
public towards the West in general, and the U.S.
and EU members in particular.
Figure 6.6
The Cold War Period
After the Second World War ended, Turkey
wanted to join NATO mainly from a security
oriented perspective. Not possessing the means
to cope with the threats stemming from the
Soviet Union on its own (for instance, Moscow’s
territorial demands on the Straits and the provinces
of Kars and Ardahan in eastern Anatolia) Turkey
wanted to secure Western help by joining the
multilateral security organization NATO. Turkey
6
desired to become a member of NATO with a
view to shoring up its resistance capability against
the threats emanating from outside sources. From
the very beginning, NATO has primarily been a
collective defense organization for Turkey.
The most important factor that facilitated
Turkey’s accession to the Alliance was that the
United States, as being the most important NATO
member, attributed a tremendous importance to
Turkey’s geopolitical position and military capacity
in the context of Cold War’s security dynamics.
The assumption on the part of the US strategists
was that the task of fulfilling NATO’s containment
and deterrence strategies vis-à-vis the Soviet Union
would be much easier if Turkey joined the Alliance
and prevented the Soviet penetration into the
eastern Mediterranean and Middle Eastern regions.
Another factor that initially pushed Turkey to
seek membership in NATO and later on proved
to be one of the main reasons for its justification
in the eyes of Turkish people was that NATO
membership was considered as an important
milestone in Turkey’s decades-old Westernization/
Europeanization/modernization process. Thanks
to NATO membership, Turkey could argue
for many years that it was a Western/European
state. Compared to other Western international
organizations, it proved to be much easier for
Turkey to help legitimize its Western/European
identity through NATO, for the alliance was in
dire need of having access to Turkey’s geographical
location and military capabilities. It was within
NATO that Turkey’s bargaining capability vis-à-vis
the West was the highest.
It might also be argued that Turkey’s
internalization of Western values and norms
proved to be much easier following its accession to
NATO. After all, given that NATO has from the
very beginning represented the unity of countries
believing in liberal-democratic values, Turkish
leaders could be acquainted with those values more
easily under the roof of NATO. Furthermore, the
impact of NATO membership on the evolution
of civilian-military relations in Turkey to more
European and Western standards should not be
underestimated (Karaosmanoğlu, 2011, 253-264).
Given that Turkey and other NATO members
regarded the Soviet Union as the common enemy
during the Cold War, Turkey was able to pursue
143
6
NATO-oriented foreign and security policies.
Despite the Cuban missile crisis in 1962, the
Johnson Letter crisis in 1964, the arms embargo
crisis in 1975, and the anti-U.S. sentiments
running high in the country from time to time;
NATO preserved its privileged position in Turkish
diplomacy during much of the Cold War period.
The most distinctive characteristic of Turkey’s
approach towards the Alliance during this period
was that Turkish elites interpreted the risks of being
abandoned by NATO much more important than
the risks of being entrapped by some alliance policies.
Even though certain groups contended that it
would be more appropriate for Turkey to withdraw
from membership and seek closer strategic relations
with the Soviet Union and Third World countries,
the advantages of remaining within NATO seem
to have far outweighed the costs of membership
(Karaosmanoğlu, 2011, 253-264).
Post-Cold War Period: New
Definitions of Interests and Identity
After the Cold War ended and the threat
stemming from the Soviet Union disappeared,
Turkey’s attitude towards the Alliance has begun
to change. In order to understand the dynamics
of Turkey’s changing attitude towards the Alliance
better, it would be useful to shed light on how
Turkey’s security and identity definitions evolved
(Oğuzlu, 2012, 99-124).
The last two decades have seen that compared
to its neighbors, Turkey’s hard and soft power
capabilities have tremendously improved.
Simultaneously, Turkey has begun to play more
active foreign policy roles. Turkey’s efforts to reach
out to non-Western geographies and actors have
increased. Besides, the international system has
gradually gained a multipolar character, with the
strict limitations of the Cold War era coming to
an end. Such factors have gradually rendered the
unidimensional and NATO-centric definition of
Turkey’s foreign and security policies obsolete.
Furthermore, threats leveled against Turkey’s
national security have changed during this process.
While the end of Cold War reduced the threats
stemming from the Soviet Union and positively
affected Turkish-Russian relations, developments
in the Middle East, Balkans and Caucasus have
started to become more important in the context
of Turkey’s security (Oğuzlu, 2013, 207-222).
144
Diplomacy of the Republic of Turkey
This situation has weakened NATO’s special and
privileged position in the definition of Turkey’s
foreign and security policies, for the need to rely on
NATO’s nuclear security umbrella has dwindled.
Besides, as Turkey’s maneuvering capability
increased and its capacity to help shape regional
developments became stronger, it has gradually
become a necessity that Turkey adopts different
methods and tools in its diplomacy.
Given that NATO was considered to be a
collective defense organization in the context of
European security, it might even be suggested that
the collapse of the Soviet Union and the gradual
amelioration in European security feeling helped
dilute NATO’s primacy as a European security
organization. NATO has lost some of its appeal in
the eyes of Turkish elites.
Another factor that has proved to be effective
in shaping Turkey’s attitude towards NATO in the
post-Cold War era is that the quality of Turkey’s
relations with European allies have begun to be
much more dependent on the pace of Turkey’s
accession process with the European Union. As
Turkey’s contribution to Europe’s security within
NATO has gradually become less-emphasized,
absent the common Soviet threat, the quality of
Turkey’s relations with European states has become
very much a function of Turkey’s EU membership
process. In an environment in which the number
of people who argued that NATO would remain
either ‘out of area’ or ‘out of business’ increased and
Turkey’s security began to be increasingly affected
by the developments taking place in non-European
geographies, it has become more difficult to build
Turkey’s foreign and security policies primarily on
the Western axis, of which NATO has been the
most important component.
This transformation in Turkey’s foreign and
security policy thinking has gained a more visible
character with the advent of the Justice and
Development Party (AKP) to government in the
early 2000s. During the reign of successive AKP
governments over the last decade Turkey has been
taking great pains to improve its relations with
neighboring countries and create zones of peace
and stability in its environment. Had Turkey
continued to follow a primarily NATO-oriented
foreign and security policy, particularly prior to the
so-called Arab Spring process, it would have most
likely failed to achieve its goals.

Diplomacy
What is worth noting in this regard is that
Turkey’s relations with Russia and Iran have
dramatically improved as Turkey has gradually left
the NATO-centered foreign and security policy
mentality behind. This remains so despite the fact
that Turkey has been at odds with Russia over the
course of developments in Syria and Ukraine.
Turkish-Iranian rivalry in the post-American
Middle East has not put the bilateral relations in
jeopardy either. Turkey and Iran are supporting
different constituencies in Iraq and Syria, yet they
still see cooperation in other areas in their interests.
The identity-based considerations that had
been very much instrumental in shaping Turkey’s
attitude towards NATO during the Cold War years
have also begun to change with the advent of the
1990s. Even though identity related motivations
have gained primacy during the reign of the AKP
governments, the footprints of such concerns
were quite evident in the first decade of the post-
Cold War era. The common attitude adopted by
all governments over the last two decades is that
Turkey’s national identity cannot be defined only
in reference to the Western world. There have
been continuing efforts to highlight Turkey’s
multiple identities, as well as its role in binding
different civilizations and identities to each other
(Yanık, 2009, 531-549). This trend has gained
further momentum over the last decade with the
internalization by successive AKP governments of
the idea that Turkey is the inheritor of the Ottoman
Empire and should make use of the Ottoman
legacy in the fields of culture, religion and politics.
To AKP governments, Turkey should be defined
as a central country, suggesting that Turkish rulers
adopt a Turkey-centric worldview in defining
national interests and policies. In addition, Turkey
should be in a position to feel itself as part of
each and every geographical location. The main
foreign policy objective of Turkey should be to
help shape regional developments decisively and to
forge interests-based pragmatic relationships with
key global actors. Turkish foreign policy should
be defined and conducted in a multi-lateral and
multi-dimensional fashion so as to make sure that
regional and global developments do not negatively
affect the liberal democratic transformation and
economic development processes at home.
6
Turkey has been striving to play a more possessive
and shaping role in the transformation process of
NATO in the post-Cold War environment. Even
though Turkey’s success in affecting NATO’s
transformation process in its interest is open to
debate, what seems to be non-debatable is that
Turkey has begun to take initiatives during this
process. As the former Turkish Prime Minister has
been quiet often stating in recent years, Turkey
strives to be the subject and owner of the Alliance,
instead of being a mere object of NATO’s policies
(Davutoğlu, 2012, 7-17). Turkey’s objective in
this regard has been to play more effective roles
in NATO’s transformation process to ensure
that the policies to be adopted by NATO allies
do not negatively affect Turkey’s multi-lateral
national identity, and multi-dimensional and multi-
directional foreign policy interests.
Some examples of Turkey’s new attitude
towards NATO as described above are as follows:
Turkey provided military support to the peace-
keeping operations carried out by NATO in the
Balkans (especially in Bosnia and Kosovo); Turkey
supported NATO’s expansion toward Poland,
Czech Republic and Hungary; Turkey participated
in and led the multinational NATO forces in
Afghanistan; Turkey took part in NATO’s limited
involvement in Libya in 2011; Turkey let NATO
install radar facilities of the missile defense system in
its territories; and Turkey encouraged the Alliance
in its efforts to help radiate NATO’s values to the
countries, which are not to be NATO members,
within the framework of NATO’s Partnership for
Peace Program (Karaosmanoğlu, 1999, 213-224).
Turkey has also adopted a more questioning and
critical stance throughout NATO’s transformation
process (Oğuzlu, 2012, 153-164). Turkey’s main
objective has been to prevent the transformation
process of NATO from negatively affecting its
relations with its neighbors as well as the positive
perception of Turkey in the Islamic world. For
example, Turkey has taken great pains to walk a fine
line between the Alliance and Russia. From Turkey’s
perspective, NATO should take into consideration
Russia’s concerns and sensitivities. In Turkish eyes,
NATO’s expansion towards Russia and efforts to
increase its military presence around the Black
Sea region might be perceived as threatening by
Russia and consequently might lead Russians to feel
145
6
besieged. This situation would likely result in Russia
pursuing more nationalist and expansionist policies.
This might in turn lead Turkish-Russian relations to
be defined on the basis of rivalry and hostility.
Similar to other European allies, particularly
Germany and France, Turkey holds the view that
Russia’s concerns should have been given more
attention while developing NATO’s policies
concerning enlargement and the missile defense
system. Despite the fact that Turkey has given its
support to the NATO’s latest efforts to bolster
its reassurance and deterrence capabilities in the
aftermath of the Russian assertiveness in Ukraine,
it would not be wrong to assert that Turkey has
taken an utmost care to adopt a balanced and
prudent approach on this issue. This should be seen
a testimony to its critical stance towards NATO’s
relations with Russia.
Moreover, Turkey has evaluated NATO‘s
missile defense shield system in the context of its
relations with Iran. The assumption held by the
security circles in Turkey was that in case some
parts of this system were installed in Turkish
territories, Iran might have considered it as a threat
against itself and adopted a more hostile attitude
towards Turkey. This very much explains why
Turkey increased its efforts to ensure that NATO’s
new security document adopted in Lisbon in
November 2010 does not mention Iran as a threat
and emphasize that the radar component of the
system to be deployed in Turkey is for purely
defensive purposes.
A similar situation could also be observed in the
appointment process of NATO’s new Secretary-
General in 2009. Turkey initially opposed to the
appointment of Denmark’s then-Prime Minister
Rasmussen as NATO Secretary-General. The
offensive attitude adopted by Rasmussen in the
cartoon crisis against Muslims in 2005 was effective
in Turkey’s opposition. Had Turkey tolerated and
approved the appointment of a person, who finds
it right to criticize and satirize sacred values of
Islam on the grounds of freedom of expression, this
might have negatively affected Turkey’s soft power
and improving image across the Muslim world in
recent years. Eventually, following the last-ditched
efforts of U.S. President Obama Turkey lifted its
objections to Rasmussen’s candidacy.
Similar Turkish concerns can also be noticed
in the context of NATO’s role and mission
in Afghanistan. Turkey sent troops to the
146
Diplomacy of the Republic of Turkey
international ISAF forces under the command
of NATO, but wanted these troops to perform
civilian duties rather than combat roles. Turkey
demonstrated a maximum effort for NATO’s fight
against Al-Qaeda and Taliban forces not to be
perceived as a fight against Islam.
Despite adopting a critical and questioning
attitude on some of the issues coming to the
agenda of the Alliance, Turkey has at the same
time paid an utmost care not to veto any particular
decision should all other allies agree on. Turkey
has not wanted to be seen as the maverick within
the Alliance. The best example of this attitude
took place on the occasion of NATO’s military
operation in Libya. Turkey initially opposed to
NATO’s intervention in Libya. This operation was
at the beginning launched by Britain and France
outside NATO framework and then taken over by
the Alliance. Turkey was extremely sensitive on the
possibility of this NATO operation causing severe
human losses in Libya and negatively affecting
Turkey’s image across the Islamic world. However,
once the allies sorted out their disagreements
and decided that NATO should take over the
operational responsibility, Turkey became a part
of this consensus. However, Turkey played an
important role in setting the limits and operational
mandate of the operation to be carried out in Libya.
Turkey was highly sensitive that ground troops
not be used during the operation and the primary
mission to be controlling the embargo imposed on
Gaddafi forces from the sea and air.
Turkey also wants to play an active role in
NATO’s efforts to reach out to the Middle East,
Eastern Mediterranean and Persian Gulf regions.
For example, Turkey actively supported NATO’s
Mediterranean Dialogue and the Istanbul
Cooperation Initiatives (ICI). Turkey lent its
support to NATO’s efforts to develop lasting
security cooperation with the countries in those
regions and to project its values.
Turkey’s new attitude towards the Alliance has
been informed by more interests-based calculations
than identity-related considerations. This can be best
observed in Turkey’s position on the institutional
relationship between NATO and EU. Turkey has
wanted to make use of its membership in NATO
in the context of EU’s attempts at having access
to NATO’s military capabilities and operational
facilities. Turkey’s stance on this issue cannot be
dissociated from the dynamics of Turkey’s relations
 6
Diplomacy

with the European Union. It would not be wrong to or adopting an obstructionist attitude within
argue that Turkey did not ease the way for the EU the Alliance would bring into existence serious
to have access to NATO’s facilities and capabilities suspicions on Turkey’s foreign policy intentions
so long as the EU members adopted a reluctant and interests. This situation will affect Turkey’s
attitude towards Turkey’s accession to the EU and relations with Western actors negatively.
questioned the credentials of Turkey’s European NATO is still important for Turkey, yet
identity and place in European security architecture. Turkey’s changing identity and interests will
Turkey’s new attitude towards the Alliance continue to lead Turkish decision makers to adopt
seems to have also been informed by more the more questioning and critical attitudes towards the
risks of being entrapped by NATO’s policies than Alliance in the years to come. NATO will hardly
the risks of being abandoned by the Alliance. maintain its privileged position in Turkish security
As Turkey’s dependency on NATO in terms of thinking as it had in the past.
security and identity decreased, Turkey has adopted
a more questioning attitude towards the Alliance.
This attitude, however, by no means suggests
that Turkey underestimates NATO’s vitality in
the materialization of its security interests in the
emerging security environments at regional and
global levels.
Although Turkey’s dependency on NATO
is decreasing and that the Alliance is losing its
erstwhile privileged position in the context of
Turkey’s foreign and security policies, Turkey still
attaches importance to NATO and the security
guarantees it provides. Turkey’s reliance on NATO
has recently become evident as the so-called Arab
Spring has turned to a winter. The way the Arab
Spring has unfolded thus far seems to have dashed Figure 6.7
Turkey’s hopes to help bring into existence a new
regional order in which Turkey would act as a
role model in the transformation of the entire
region in line with liberal-democratic norms. The 3
growing specter of territorial disintegration in Iraq
Which factors do you think motivated
and Syria, the ongoing threat of the Islamic State
Turkish decision makers to apply for
in the region, the transformation of the Middle
membership in NATO?
East into an ungovernable anarchic environment
in an Hobbesian fashion following the US military
withdrawal and the new dynamics of Kurdish
movement across the region seem to have all added CONCLUSION
up to Turkey’s insecurity feelings. This chapter examined the diplomatic and
As of today, it seems that Turkey has rediscovered foreign policy dynamcis of the Republic of Turkey’s
the usefulness of the Alliance particularly given since the early 1920s. It demonstrated the impact
that the ongoing internal war in Syria carries the of structural and conjectural factors in this regard.
risk of putting Turkey’s territorial security into Then an attempt was made at discussing the actors,
jeopardy. Turkey’s decision to ask for the Alliance instruments and processes of Turkish diplomacy.
to deploy surface-to-air Patriot missiles along the Finally, Turkey’s relations with the collective
Syrian border is of particular note in this context. defense organization NATO was examined in detail
Membership in NATO is still the most as a case study showing how Turkey’s diplomacy
important evidence of Turkey’s place in the Western practices have evolved since the early years of the
international society. Withdrawing from NATO Cold War era till now.

147
6
Diplomacy of the Republic of Turkey

LO 1 Comprehend the dynamics of Turkish

Diplomacy in a categorical way

Structural factors are those that tend to have long-term impact on Turkish diplomacy and foreign policy.
These factors do not change easily from time to time and offer a particular contextual environment
in which Turkish decision makers tend to interpret external developments. Their impact is deep and
they are well internalized by diplomatic elites and people alike. Structural factors have a lasting impact
on Turkey’s diplomacy and foreign policy. Structural factors are the Ottoman legacy, Westernization
process, Ataturk’s legacy and geography. In addition to the structural factors, Turkish diplomacy and
foreign policy has also been informed by the confluence of some conjectural factors which tend to have
short term impact on how Turkey’s diplomatic practices have unfolded since the early 1920s. These
Summary

factors are the shifts in the structure of international system and political ideologies of ruling elites at
different times.

LO 2 Distinguish the actors, processes and tools of Turkish Diplomacy as they

have evolved since the foundation of the Turkish Republic

The government is the main actor in charge of defining Turkey’s foreign policy interests and diplomatic
goals. Constitutionally speaking it is the elected representatives of the Turkish people that have the final
authority to determine Turkey’s foreign policy orientation. Despite the primacy of elected civilians
in this process, the appointed bureaucrats in state administration have long played the most decisive
role. It is with the reign of Justice and Development Party (AKP) governments that the process of
civilianization in Turkish foreign policy has begun to take strong roots. Many key foreign policy
decisions since the early 2000s have been taken by the elected politicians and high level bureaucrats in
state administration have been relegated to advisory roles. Foreign policy decision making process in
Turkey is now both centralized and civilianized. The input of public opinion is traditionally limited,
yet recent decades have witnessed that governments have increasingly taken into account the potential
consequences of foreign policy decisions on domestic politics. As of today, Turkey has more than 200
diplomatic missions all around globe. While ambassadorial missions deal with diplomatic and political
issues, consulates are in charge of dealing with social, cultural and similar problems of Turkish people
living in other countries. Turkey’s strong military power capability constitutes the most important
source of Turkish diplomacy. The employment of civilian and soft power instruments in Turkish
diplomacy has also become noticeable in recent years. Improving Turkey’s positive image in the eyes
of other countries does also constitute an important part of Turkish diplomatic efforts in recent years.

148

Diplomacy
1 Conjectural and temporal factors in Turkish
foreign policy include: ______
a. Ataturk’s legacy
b. Westernization process
c. Political ideologies of ruling governments
d. Turkey’s geographical location
e. The legacy of the Ottoman Empire
2 The Ottoman Legacy in Turkish foreign
policy is about the impact of: ______
a. The changing dynamics of international system.
b. The pragmatic and prudent foreign policy
practices during Ataturk’s era.
c. The political ideology of center-of-right parties
in Turkish domestic politics.
d. Turkey’s aspiration to join the European Union.
e. The strong state tradition in defining foreign
and security policy interests.
3 The importance of Turkey’s geographical
location in Turkish diplomacy can be seen in:
a. Turkey’s efforts to play an order-creator role in
Middle East over the last decade
b. Turkey’s efforts to convince the EU that Turkey
might help the latter meet its energy needs
c. Turkey’s efforts to undertake thorough
Westernization process during Ataturk’s time
d. Turkey’s decision to bring into existence a league
of Turkic nations under Turkey’s leadership
e. Turkey’s ability to pursue a multi-dimensional
and multi-directional foreign policy during the
detente period in Cold War, 1960-1980.
4 Which of the following is an example of
center-of-right political ideology in Turkish
diplomacy?
a. Establishing a security alliance with the Soviet
Union
b. Pursuing non-alignment foreign policy during
the Cold War
c. Making Turkey the leader of the community of
Muslim nations
d. Making sure that Turkey joins the key Western/
European international organizations
e. Making sure that Turkey leaves NATO and
comes closer to Eurasian countries
6
5 Which of the following is an example of
Turkish diplomacy during the 1945-1960 time
period?
a. Turkey pursued a predominantly pro-Western
foreign policy
b. Turkey’s efforts to develop strong relations with
Test Yourself
Russia and Iran increased
c. Turkey pursued neutrality foreign policy
d. Turkey applied for full membership in the
European Union
e. Turkey worked for the establishment of the
Saadabad Pact
6 Which of the following can be said about
Turkish diplomacy during the reign of the Justice
and Development Party?
a. Turkey’s ideational commitment to the Western
international community persisted
b. Turkey gave up the idea of joining the European
Union
c. Turkey wanted to leave NATO as part of its
efforts to develop more strategic cooperation
with Russia, China and Iran
d. The role of elected civilians/politicians in
Turkish diplomacy has strengthened
e. Turkey continued to heavily rely on hard power
instruments in its diplomacy
7 Which of the following is an example of the
employment of hard power instruments in Turkish
diplomacy over the last fifteen years?
a. The number of Turkish embassies all over the
world increased
b. Turkey organized military operations outside
its borders to respond to growing security
challenges
c. TRT and Turkish Airlines became important
instruments of Turkish diplomacy
d. Turkey increased its developmental and
humanitarian aids to poor countries
e. Businessmen increasingly took part in the
official visits of Turkish rulers to other countries.
149
6
Diplomacy of the Republic of Turkey

8 Turkey’s membership in NATO is important,
because: ______
a. Turkey’s ability pursue a non-aligned foreign
policy increased
b. Turkey’s Western allies always supported
Test Yourself
10 During the post-Cold War era, Turkey: ______
a. Continued to maintain its uncritical
commitment to NATO membership
b. Argued for the enlargement of NATO to
Middle East

Turkey’s foreign policy and diplomatic practices
c. This increased the chance of Turkey’s
membership in the European Union
d. Turkey could develop an equal relationship with
the United States within NATO
e. This strengthened the credentials of Turkey’s
Western/European identity
c. Wanted to make sure that NATO’s approach
towards Russia does not affect Turkey’s relations
with Russia negatively
d. Did not contribute to multinational military
operations organized by NATO
e. Supported Russia’s membership in NATO

9 During the post-Cold War era, Turkey’s

approach towards NATO reflects ______
a. Turkey’s determination to influence the
transformation of the Alliance from within by
making its voice heard more loudly
b. Turkey’s determination to block NATO’s
enlargement towards the former communist
countries in central and eastern Europe
c. Turkey’s intention to help weaken the alliance
from within by spooling many of its policies
d. Turkey’s intention to leave the alliance and join
Shanghai Cooperation Organization
e. Turkey’s uncritical support to the improvement
of institutional relations between NATO and
the European Union

150
 6
Diplomacy

If your answer is incorrect, review the If your answer is incorrect, review the
1. c 6. d
section on “Temporal and Conjectural section on “Actors, Processes and Tools of
Factors” Turkish Diplomacy”

Answer Key for “Test Yourself”

2. e If your answer is incorrect, review the
section on “Ottoman Legacy”
If your answer is incorrect, review the
7. b
section on “Actors, Processes and Tools of
Turkish Diplomacy”

If your answer is incorrect, review the

3. b If your answer is incorrect, review the 8. e
section on “Turkey’s Relations With NATO
section on “Geography is the Destiny”
as a Case Study”

If your answer is incorrect, review the

4. d If your answer is incorrect, review the 9. a
section on “Post-Cold War Period: New
section on “Political Ideologies”
definitions of Interests and Identity”

If your answer is incorrect, review the

5. a If your answer is incorrect, review the 10. c
section on “Post-Cold War Period: New
section on “International System”
definitions of Interests and Identity”

Suggested Answers for “Your Turn”

Comment on Ataturk’s Legacy in Turkish Foreign Policy

To Mustafa Kemal Ataturk, the founder of the Republic, and his comrades in
arms, Turkey’s number one national interest during the 1920s and 1930s was to
protect the newly gained independence and sovereignty as well as successfully
completing the radical transformation process at home. This required the pursuit
of a pragmatic, prudent and realist foreign policy, enshrining the principle
of ‘peace at home peace in the world’. Turkish rulers tried to help bring into
existence a stable and cooperative regional environment so that developments
outside the borders would never have negative consequences on the ongoing
modernization and development processes at home. In this sense, there seems
to exist a strong degree of continuity between Turkey’s efforts to support
regional cooperation during the interwar years through the Balkan Entente
and Saadabad Pact and the attempts of the Justice and Development Party
governments at encouraging regional cooperation initiatives over the last fifteen
years. Pragmatism also suggested that Turkey would do well to construct friendly
relations with former enemies. Involvement in the internal affairs of other states
and pursuit of expansionist and irredentist foreign policies do not hold any place
your turn 1 in Ataturk’s diplomatic legacy. This is the main reason why any attempt at regime
change abroad is very much criticized at home. Traditional Turkish diplomacy is
based on the idea that states are independent in their internal affairs and Turkey
should not be involved in the business of regime change or value promotion.
Trying to solve national security problems through diplomacy and international
law is another legacy of Ataturk. The revision of the Lasuanne regulations on
the status of Turkish Straits through the Montreaux Convention in 1936, the
incorporation of Hatay region into Turkey in 1939, and the settlement of the
Mousul question and the border dispute with Iraq in 1926 are all examples to
the use of international law and diplomacy in Turkish foreign policy. Diplomacy
backed by hard power capability and diplomatic initiatives conferring legitimacy
on military victories constitute the backbone of Ataturk’s diplomatic legacy.

151
6
Diplomacy of the Republic of Turkey

What kind of soft and civilian power instruments are employed in

Turkey’s diplomatic practices abroad?

Desecuritization of bilateral relations with neighboring countries, particularly

Suggested Answers for “Your Turn”

with the ones located in the Middle East; helping bring into existence EU-
like regional integration mechanisms in its region; investing in multilateral
problems in its effort to find solutions to regional problems; taking ‘mediatory
and facilitation initiatives’ in the solution of disputes between other countries’
and intensifying the social and cultural exchanges with other countries
in social, cultural, tourism and educational levels all now shape Turkish
diplomatic practices decisively. Improving Turkey’s positive image in the eyes
your turn 2 of other countries does also constitute an important part of Turkish diplomatic
efforts in recent years. Investing in public diplomacy initiatives, transforming
the Turkish Airlines into one of the largest air-carriers all over the world,
founding the English language TRT-World, redesigning the TRT as a multi-
lingual broadcasting company, increasing humanitarian and development aids
to poor and needy countries, and establishing particular state institutions in
charge of dealing with the problems of Turkish-origin people in the countries
which host sizable Turkish communities can all be considered as important
soft power initiatives.

Which factors do you think motivated Turkish decision makers

to apply for membership in NATO?

The most important factor that facilitated Turkey’s accession to the Alliance was
that the United States, as being the most important NATO member, attributed
a tremendous importance to Turkey’s geopolitical position and military capacity
in the context of Cold War’s security dynamics. The assumption on the part
of the US strategists was that the task of fulfilling NATO’s containment and
deterrence strategies vis-à-vis the Soviet Union would be much easier if Turkey
joined the Alliance and prevented the Soviet penetration into the eastern
Mediterranean and Middle Eastern regions. Another factor that initially
your turn 3 pushed Turkey to seek membership in NATO and later on proved to be one
of the main reasons for its justification in the eyes of Turkish people was that
NATO membership was considered as an important milestone in Turkey’s
decades-old Westernization/Europeanization/modernization process. Thanks to
NATO membership, Turkey could argue for many years that it was a Western/
European state. Compared to other Western international organizations, it
proved to be much easier for Turkey to help legitimize its Western/European
identity through NATO, for the alliance was in dire need of having access to
Turkey’s geographical location and military capabilities. It was within NATO
that Turkey’s bargaining capability vis-à-vis the West was the highest.

152
 6
Diplomacy

References
Aras, Bülent and Rabiya Karaya Polat (2008). “From Conflict to Cooperation: Desecuritization of Turkey’s
Relations with Syria and Iran”, Security Dialogue, 39/5: 495-515.
Avcı, Gamze (2011). “The Nationalist Movement Party’s Euroscepticism: Party Ideology Meets Strategy”, South
European Society and Politics, 16/3: 435–447.
Aydın, Mustafa (1999). “Determinants of Turkish foreign policy: historical framework and traditional inputs”,
Middle Eastern Studies, 35/4: 152-186.
Aydın, Mustafa (2000). “Determinants of Turkish foreign policy: changing patterns and conjunctures during
the Cold War”, Middle Eastern Studies, 36/1: 103-139.
Aydın, Mustafa (2003). “Securitization of History and Geography: Understanding of Security in Turkey”,
Southeast European and Black Sea Studies, 3/2: 163-184.
Barlas, Dilek (2005). “Turkish Diplomacy in the Balkans and the Mediterranean. Opportunities and Limits for
Middle-power Activism in the 1930s”, Journal of Contemporary History, 40/3: 441-464.
Celep, Ödül (2011), “The Republican People’s Party and Turkey’s EU Membership”, South European Society
and Politics, 16/3: 423–434
Çelik, Nihat Çelik and Emre İşeri (2016). “Islamically oriented humanitarian NGOs in Turkey: AKP foreign
policy parallelism”, Turkish Studies, 17/3: 429-448.
Davutoğlu, Ahmet (2012). “Transformation of Turkey and Turkey’s Position”, Perceptions, 17/1: 7-17.
Hale, William (2013). Turkish Foreign Policy since 1774. (New York: Routledge).
Heper. Metin (1985). The State tradition in Turkey. (New York: Eothen Press).
İçener, Erhan and Zeynep Çağlıyan-İçener (2011). “The Justice and Development Party’s identity and its role
in the EU’s decision to open accession negotiations with Turkey”, Southeast European and Black Sea Studies,
11/1:19-34.
Karaosmanoğlu, Ali L (1999). “NATO Enlargement and the South A Turkish Perspective”, Security Dialogue
30/2: 213-224.
Karaosmanoğlu, Ali (2000). “The Evolution of the National Security Culture and the Military in Turkey”,
Journal of International Affairs, 54/1:199-216.
Karaosmanoğlu, Ali L (2011). “Transformation of Turkey’s Civil-Military Relations Culture and International
Environment”, Turkish Studies, 12/2: 253-264.
Oğuzlu, Tarık (2003). “An Analysis of Turkey’s Prospective Membership in the European Union from a
‘Security’ Perspective’”, Security Dialogue, 34/3: 285-299.
Oğuzlu, Tarık (2007). “Soft Power in Turkish Foreign Policy,” Australian Journal of International Affairs, 61/1:
81-97.
Oğuzlu, Tarık (2012). “Turkey’s Eroding Commitment to NATO: From Identity to Interests”, Washington
Quarterly, 35/3: 153-164.
Oğuzlu, Tarık (2012). “NATO ve Türkiye: Dönüşen İttifakın Sorgulayan Üyesi”, Uluslararası İlişkiler, 9/34:
99-124.

153
6
Diplomacy of the Republic of Turkey

Oğuzlu, Tarık (2013). “Testing the strength of Turkish-American strategic relationship through NATO:
Convergence or divergence within the Alliance?”, The Journal of Balkan and Near Eastern Studies, 15/2:
207-222.
Öniş, Ziya and Şuhnaz Yılmaz (2009). “‹Between Europeanization and Euro-Asianism: Foreign Policy Activism
in Turkey during the AKP Era”, Turkish Studies, 10/1:7-24.
Türkmen, Füsun (2010). “Anti-Americanism as a default ideology of opposition: Turkey as a case study”,
Turkish Studies 11/3: 329-345.
Vanderlippe, John (2001). “A Cautious Balance: The Question of Turkey in World War II”, The Historian,
64/1: 63-81.
Yanık, Lerna K (2009). “The Metamorphosis of Metaphors of vision: ‘Bridging’ Turkey’s Location, Role and
Identity after the end of the Cold War”, Geopolitics 14/3: 531-549.
http://www.ismetinonu.org.tr/index.php/fotograf-galerisi/23-lozan/detail/672-k212048?tmpl=component
http://www.ismetinonu.org.tr/index.php/fotograf-galerisi/23-lozan/detail/672-k212048?tmpl=component

Source: https://aa.com.tr/en/infographics/turkey-boasts-no-5-diplomatic-network-in-the-world/1058710

154
 Diplomacy Practices
Chapter 7 of Global Powers
After completing this chapter, you will be able to:
Learning Outcomes

1 Analyze the diplomacy practices of global

power from a theoretical perspective 2 Asses the diplomatic practices of major global
powers, such as United States, European
Union, China and Russia

Chapter Outline Key Terms

Introduction • Global Powers • Isolationism
• Diplomacy • Liberal
Theoretical Analysis of Global Powers’ Diplomacy
• United States Internationalism
Diplomacy of the United States • European Union • Neo-Conservatism
Diplomacy of the European Union • China • Realism
• Russia • Value Promotion
Diplomacy of China • Realpolitik
Diplomacy of Russia
Conclusion

156

Diplomacy
INTRODUCTION
This chapter is about the diplomatic practices
of global powers. Understanding the diplomatic
practices of such global powers as the United
States (U.S.), European Union (EU), Russia and
China will help us better capture the evolution
of international systems as well as comprehend
the dynamics of international politics and the
future direction of global order. The primacy of
western global powers has in recent years been
challenged by the rising non-western powers.
The liberal international order that came into
being in the aftermath of the Second World War
under the dominance of the United States is now
being exposed to various challenges, of which the
spectacular rise of China as well as the growing
Russian attempts at regional and global influence
stand out (Ikenberry, 2018, 7-23).
The first part of the chapter will discuss the
importance of global powers in international
relations from a theoretical perspective. The
main question to be answered is in which ways
global powers are different from other states in
international relations in terms of foreign policy
understanding and diplomatic practices and why
it is important to examine their foreign policies
and diplomatic practices. Then, the attention will
switch to the examination of diplomacy of current
global powers in detail.
THEORETICAL ANALYSIS OF
GLOBAL POWERS’ DIPLOMACY
Analyzing foreign policy behaviors of states
requires an in-depth examination of the motivations
that influence state leaders in their external actions
(Smith, Hadfield and Dunne, 2012). Whereas
one group of scholars argues that foreign policy
behaviors are mainly a function of intangible
factors of material power capabilities, geographical
locations, and external developments, another
group contends that intangible factors of personality
traits, belief systems, world views, ideologies and
cultures play more decisive roles (Neack, 2014).
This discussion can also be boiled down to
the debate whether foreign policy is a function
of interests or values (Oguzlu, 2013, 39-51). In
case interests dominate foreign policy choices and
behaviors of actors, states are mainly motivated
7
in their external relations by the concern of
maximizing their material power capabilities as well
as ensuring their long-term survival. Here, neither
internal characteristics at home nor the way how
other states are ruled in their domestic affairs has
a role in shaping foreign policy. Engaging others
and responding to external stimuli is basically a
function of the instrumental calculation of how
much benefit one could extract from such exercises.
On the other hand, in case values and norms
shape foreign policy, the question of ‘who states are’
significantly shapes the questions of ‘what states
want and how states behave. Looking at foreign
policy from this perspective, state leaders bother to
ask how others are ruled in their internal affairs and
which values they embrace domestically. Foreign
policy mainly targets the internal transformation
of other states in the image of the values and norms
that one holds at home.
A third group of scholars combines the insights
of these two approaches and claims that singling
out one set of variables at the negligence of others
will not bring us anywhere close to understanding
the complexity of the real world. They suggest that
scholars had better adopt a more holistic approach
in this process. The so-called neo-classical realist
approach in International Relations can for example
be interpreted as a scholarly attempt at successfully
merging the tangible and intangible motivations of
states’ foreign policy behaviors (Lobell, Ripsman
and Taliaferro, 2009). Put simply, neoclassical
realism posits that making sense of the tangible
factors out there is made through the intangible
factors that constitute states’ identities and values.
Many middle and small-sized powers are much
more preoccupied with their survival. Compared to
global powers, their room of maneuvering is limited.
Their success in ensuring survival hinges on their
ability to play global powers off against each other,
viz. external balancing, rather than solely investing
in their own material capabilities, viz. internal
balancing (Goodby, 2014, 31-39). Their foreign
policy behaviors aim primarily at mitigating the
negative consequences of global power competitions
on their internal stability and external sovereignty.
Compared to global powers, middle and small-sized
powers find it difficult to pursue value-oriented
normative foreign policies mainly because their
material power capabilities are limited.
157
7
On the other hand, global powers are in a
much better position than middle and small-
sized powers to ground their foreign policies on
the basis of both tangible interests and intangible
values. The immense material power capabilities
at their disposal empower them in their attempts
at shaping the external milieu, rather than merely
responding to external stimuli in a reactionary
manner. That is also to say that adopting a soft-
power oriented foreign policy approach is likely to
be the prerogative of strong global powers. Investing
in value projection abroad and relying on ‘power of
attraction’ in dealing with others indirectly require
a good deal of hard power capability. Global
powers do not only feel secure in terms of their
territorial integrity but also find it easy to parley
their immense material power capabilities to value-
oriented transformative policies abroad.
Unlike some middle powers and many small-
sized powers, global powers have the luxury of
helping bring into existence a particular external
environment to their liking, as well as making use
of the existing power balances within the system to
maximize their material power capabilities. Stated
somewhat differently, global powers do not only
aim at maximizing their power capabilities at the
expense of their rivals but also endeavor to midwife
a particular external environment that reflects their
values and norms (Mearsheimer, 2003).
It is not easy to ascertain when global powers
prioritize value-oriented transformative foreign
policies or put power maximization at the center
of their external behaviors. These two concerns are
most of the time intermingled with each other and
meeting one generally requires the fulfillment of the
other. Just as immense material power capabilities
enable global powers to set in motion value-
oriented transformative foreign policies, successful
normative/transformative foreign policies help
them bring into existence suitable environments
in which they find it much easier to preserve and
improve their material well-being.
For example, making sense of foreign policy
and diplomatic practices of the U.S. in the Middle
East cannot be properly accomplished without
taking into account the ideational/value-oriented
logic of democracy promotion along with the
materialist/interest-related logic of furthering
regional stability. Similarly, the post-Cold War era
158
Diplomacy Practices of Global Powers
American efforts to invest more in East Asia have
aimed at both containing China’s rise materially
and ensuring China’s integration and socialization
to the liberal international world order normatively.
Likewise, the Chinese foreign and security policy
reflects the realpolitik interest of limiting the access
of external actors to East and South East Asia as
well as the normative aspiration of midwifing a
China-friendly environment in which Pax-Sinica
is deemed legitimate. Russia’s foreign policy
undertakings in Eastern Europe, wider Black Sea
and wider Middle Eastern regions do also manifest
a similar logic. Many Russian diplomatic activities
target both maximizing Russia’s sphere of influence
in such locations and convincing other actors that
the values of ‘sovereign democracy’, ‘inviolability
of territorial borders’, ‘non-interference in internal
affairs of other states’ and ‘great power primacy’ are
seen legitimate.
1
Comment on the key characteristics
of global powers in terms of their
foreign policy and diplomacy.
DIPLOMACY OF THE UNITED
STATES
At its foundation, the U.S. proved to be different
from traditional powers in Europe and other
continents. The immigrant nature of the American
society led the founders of the republic to build
their country on the basis of liberal, democratic and
pluralist norms, further enshrining the principles
of individual freedom, free entrepreneur-ship,
limited government and checks and balances
in the Constitution. In the realm of diplomacy
and foreign policy, the rulers of the country long
shunned the practices of getting involved in other
states’ internal affairs and becoming part of geo-
political competitions in other continents. The
geographical location of the country, being walled
from other places through two oceans to the east
and west, enabled the early generations to focus
their attention solely on economic development
and political cohesion at home.

Diplomacy
Figure 7.1
Unless other continents, most notably Europe
and Asia, came under the domination of an anti-
American power block and unless any other global
power threatened the U.S. national interests
by trying to take a strong presence in America’s
near abroad, the U.S. leaders did not show
strong enthusiasm to pursue ambitious policies
to institutionalize American dominance across
the globe. Hence the strong ‘isolationist’ impulse
in American diplomatic practices (Johnstone,
2011, 8-13). The U.S.’ involvement in WW1 and
WW2 followed the specter of European and Asian
geopolitical theatres coming under the dominance
of anti-American power blocks. By the time the
WW2 came to the end, the U.S. had already
become the most powerful global actor ever seen in
terms of material power capabilities and the ability
to help shape the world in its own image.
Since the early years of the Cold War era, the
U.S. has mainly adopted an ‘internationalist’
mentality and acted as a liberal power putting its
liberal democratic norms at the center of its foreign
and security policy engagements across the globe
(Johnstone, 2011, 13-17). Realist and pragmatic
tendencies in American foreign policy have almost
always been in sync with the liberal democratic
nature of U.S. polity at home. The projection of
American norms onto other places in the name
of U.S. national security interests has sometimes
been pursued with strong determination and
commitment whereas at other times with
circumspect and caution (Milne, 2015). While the
so-called ‘liberal internationalists’ argue that the
U.S. would do well to help promote such norms
through international institutions and multilateral
mechanisms, the so-called ‘neo-conservatives’
see the use of military power in dealing with
authoritarian and illiberal states and supporting
liberal democratic norms. Despite the fact that
‘realists’ and isolationists abhor adventures abroad
7
and argue against the use of force unless vital
national interests were at stake, they nevertheless
side with the liberal internationalist camp in
defining the U.S as an exceptional country and put
the American values and way of life at the highest
place in the hierarchy of global norms and values.
The world order as it came into existence
following the end of the Second World War
reflected predominantly American power,
norms and interests (Ikenberry, 2011). The key
international organizations, such as the United
Nations, International Monetary Fund, World
Bank and NATO all embody the American
principles and preferences. The U.S. also played a
facilitative role in the foundation of the European
Union. The assumption was that economic, social
and political integration among western European
liberal democratic states would not only bring into
existence a strong market for American goods and
capital but also help the U.S. contain the existential
threat emanating from the Soviet Union more cost-
effectively. In addition to the multilateral NATO in
Europe, the U.S. also masterminded the so-called
‘hub and spokes’ alliance structure in the Asia-
Pacific theater, through which forming bilateral
strategic alliances with the liberal democratic states
in this region became possible.
The end of the Cold War era paved the way for
strengthening American primacy across the globe,
as no other power was in a position to shake up
the foundations of this uni-polar era for about
fifteen years. The 1990s and much of the 2000s
demonstrated that the U.S. was the indispensable
power on earth. Through its involvement, both
the ethnic wars in the Balkans came to an end
and western norms and intuitions were enlarged
to erstwhile communist countries in central and
eastern Europe. The enlargement of NATO and
European Union towards the former communist
countries bolstered the U.S. primacy in Europe,
whereas the percolation of the so-called Washington
consensus across the globe solidified the capitalist
and liberal-democratic principles in other locations.
Hence, the famous ‘End of History’ thesis of the
prominent American scholar Francis Fukuyama
(Fukuyama, 1992).
The ominous terrorist attacks on U.S. territories
on Sep. 11, 2001, did not only awaken the American
rulers to the rise of a new world order that might not
159
7
be as hospitable as the one before, but also urged
them to engage in a global war on terror, during
which American troops set foot in Afghanistan to
topple Taliban and in Iraq to overthrow Saddam’s
regime. That the U.S. mainly adopted a unilateral
and militaristic course of action in its efforts both to
defeat the forces of evil in the wider Middle Eastern
region and midwife liberal democratic regimes
across the globe, most of the time at the urge of
neoconservatives, appears to have inadvertently
pushed other global actors to doubt U.S.’ ‘secret’
intentions behind such policies and increasingly
challenge the pax-Americana. The challenge
emanated not only from the jihadist extremist Al-
Qaeda and its affiliates but also the rising powers
of the non-western world whose peculiar economic
and socio-political models appear to have offered
strong alternatives across the globe.
The steady increase in material power
capabilities of non-western powers, the abject
failure of the American nation-building projects in
different quarters of the globe, the economic crisis
that hit the western world severely in late 2008 and
the growing appeal of non-western world visions
have led Americans to go through a soul-searching
process and find ways to successfully adapt to the
new realities on the ground.
The election of Barack Obama to presidency in
late 2008 can be read not only as the demonstration
of the frustration of the American electorate
with the policies of the Bush administration but
also the growing need to adjust to the emerging
dynamics of the post-American world order.
Despite Donald Trump’s strong criticisms of
Obama administrations’ foreign policy practices,
the former appears to continue with the basic
foreign policy strategy of the latter with some
nuances. Both rejected nation-building exercises
in foreign countries and adopted a more realist
and pragmatic foreign policy approach than a
liberal one. However, whereas Obama was of
more ‘multilateralist’, Trump seems to be more
‘bilateralist’ and ‘unilateralist’.
The Obama administration recognized that
the U.S. was no longer in a position to pursue a
‘primacist’ strategy across the globe (Kaplan, 2016,
46-63). Even though Trump accuses Obama of
pursuing ‘retrenchment’ and ‘leading from behind’
strategies and therefore contributing to the erosion
of American leadership, both saw the strategy of
160
Diplomacy Practices of Global Powers
democracy promotion as futile in the emerging
multipolar world order. The relative decline in
American material power capabilities and the rise
of alternative ideational and normative challenges
put by non-western powers appear to have led
both presidents to put nation-building at home at
the center of their foreign policies. This introvert
approach and increasing aversion from military
engagements abroad seem to have strengthened
the realist, pragmatic and isolationist tendencies in
U.S foreign policy. The ambivalent and equivocal
attitude of the U.S. during the course of the so-
called Arab Spring is a clear evidence of the realist
and pragmatic turn in U.S. foreign policy.
The United States is no longer in a mood of
planning long-term nation-building projects in
war-torn and post-conflict societies. The failures in
Iraq, Afghanistan and Syria demonstrate that the
U.S. is not good at nation-building. Withdrawal
from Iraq and Afghanistan has strengthened the
U.S.’s reluctance to get militarily involved in
similar theaters, such as Syria.
Both Obama and Trump recognized that the U.S.
should no longer play the role of global hegemon
in maintaining peace and security. Contrary to the
‘hegemonic stability theory’, the US does not want
to play the role of benign hegemon any longer. As for
the relations with traditional allies, the key message
the United States is now sending is that those allies
should spend more on their security and defense.
They should not take the American commitment
to their security for granted. European allies should
both speed up their integration process within
EU and contribute more strategic and military
capabilities to NATO (Haas, 2017, 2-9). Dealing
with the challenges arising from the resurgent Russia,
instability in the Balkans and the growing anarchy
in the Middle East and North Africa is first and
foremost the responsibility of European allies. What
happens in these locations affect Europe more than
the U.S. It is now abundantly clear that that the U.S.
does not want to channel too much of its attention
and capabilities to European and Middle Eastern
security challenges. Rather, it would like to see its
European allies pay much of the bill in such theatres.
With Obama and Trump, the focus on great power
relations came back. Dealing with China and Russia
now appears to be more important than focusing on
humanitarian interventions, counter-terrorism and
democracy promotion exercises.

Diplomacy
For NATO to remain relevant for U.S. security
interests, European allies need to increase their
military contribution to the alliance. For the US
to continue providing peace and stability in East
Asia, its traditional allies there should take on more
responsibility. For example, the U.S. is not against
the reinterpretation of the Article 9 of the Japanese
constitution that forbids both the Japanese use of
force in contingencies other than self-defense and
Japan’s participation in collective defense cooperation
with third countries. In the American eyes, the rise
of China and its alleged military assertiveness in East
China and South China Seas is not a threat solely
posed to the United States. Traditional American
allies in the region also feel threatened. Therefore,
Washington is keen on the point that defensive
security cooperation among American allies in the
region is vital. Similar to allies in Europe, East Asian
allies should not take it for granted that the U.S. will
come to their aid automatically.
The way how the U.S. has been responding to
the rise of China and other non-western powers
does also speak volumes with respect to American
reading of the new world order. As it is by now
undoubtedly clear, the U.S. has been cognizant of
the fact that the world is changing at great speed
and the existing global institutions, many of which
came into being in the immediate aftermath of the
WWII, should be restructured in such a way to
reflect the current power configurations more fairly.
However, this is easier said than done. There have
been some reforms concerning the representation
of rising powers in the institutional structure of the
International Monetary Fund and the World Bank.
Yet, many other international institutions do still
reflect western primacy and the post-war era power
configurations.
The conventional American view concerning
China’s rise is that the U.S. would do well to
help integrate China into existing international
institutions so that China would gradually act
as a responsible stakeholder and demonstrate
more commitment to the preservation of the
existing order (Layne, 2018, 89-111). In the eyes
of Americans, China is certainly posing a serious
challenge to U.S. global primacy. Americans appear
to have rediscovered that they are now more an
Indo-Pacific and East Asian nation than a European
one. Much of the American trade is now with East
and South Asian countries and the nature of the
7
bilateral relationship between Washington and
Beijing does now affect American and global peace
and stability more than Washington’s relationship
with Brussels or any other European capital.
Figure 7.2
Americans view relations with China through
multiple prisms, most importantly security and
economics. The pivot-to-Asia strategy seems to
have already strengthened its credentials across the
American security establishment. Needless to say,
geopolitical, demographic, economic and security
developments in East Asia will become more and
more important for the U.S. as time goes by. The
growing interdependence between China and U.S.
makes the dynamics of this bilateral relationship
quite significant for global peace and security.
Whether some call this relationship as ‘G-2’ or
‘Chimerica’, the way how it unfolds will affect almost
every country on earth. On one hand, Americans
view China’s increasing military capabilities as
threatening and therefore try to contain this potential
danger. On the other, the U.S. continues to invest a
lot of effort and money in engaging China through
bilateral and multilateral mechanisms so that China
adopts conciliatory and benign foreign policies and
views the existing international order legitimate.
The combination of containment and engagement
strategies, viz. the con-gagement strategy, seems to
capture the current U.S. approach to China well.
The U.S.’ view of Russia is also important, for
the dynamics of Russian-American relations will
profoundly impact peace in Europe and beyond
(Biden and Carpenter, 2018, 44-57). According to
many American foreign and security policy experts,
the ideology of Putinism is clearly anti-American,
revivalist, nationalistic and unilateral. Despite such
a grim picture of Putin’s Russia, Americans do
not put Russia on an equal footing with China.
161
7
Russia is a power in decay and many of the policies
it has adopted in recent years reflect its growing
incapacity to deal with the western encroachment
on its near abroad. That is to say that it is highly
unlikely for the Russian Federation to threaten the
security interests of transatlantic allies as it had in
the past. Russia is very much dependent on the
West in terms of technology, markets for its natural
resources and foreign direct investment. Besides,
Russia is suffering from a decreasing population
with a grave alcohol problem.
Both state and non-state actors are quite
influential in the U.S. foreign policy making
process. Compared to their Chinese and Russian
counterparts, American presidents are weaker in the
sense that they need to share authority with the US
Congress. Due to its open society character, civil
society organizations, organized interests groups,
other states and ethnic lobbies have access to key
decision makers located in Washington. The reason
why the founders of the republic envisaged a week
presidency was to make sure that authoritarian
leaders not impose their will on the nation and
the U.S. becomes a military security state. The
strong legacy of isolationism and continental
Americanism even led the decision makers to focus
their attention mainly on domestic issues at the
expense of foreign policy issues.
In the US state apparatus, Department of
Defense, Department of State, National Security
Council, National Economic Council, Department
of Commerce, Department of Treasury, Central
Intelligence Organization, and United State Trade
Representative do all to aid the President in the
formulation of U.S. foreign policy interests. The
President is in charge of the execution of foreign
policy and acts as the commander in chief during
peace and war times.
The Congressmen do also have constitutional
authority in shaping foreign policy. The authority
to declare war, to send troops abroad for longer
than three months, to sign alliance treaties, to sign
trade agreements, to approve ambassadors, to raise
taxes rest with the Congress.
2 European Council and the European Commission
Comment on the roots of isolationism in
the diplomacy of the United States
162
Diplomacy Practices of Global Powers
DIPLOMACY OF THE
EUROPEAN UNION
The EU is by far the most successful example
of international institutions aiming at transcending
traditional/modern interstate relations through the
formation of collective identities and supranational
institutions. What seems to set the EU apart
from other polities is that the post-modern logic
underpinning its integration process has mainly
culminated in the formation of a security community
among its members as well as the prioritization of
multiple interdependencies and soft/normative
power instruments in its relations with external
actors (Bremberg, 2015, 674-692). Rather than
subscribing to the modern understanding of
forging international relations on the basis of clear-
cut inside-outside distinctions, the success of the
EU emanates from its ability to have brought into
existence a new understanding thereby its foreign
policy takes it legitimacy from the common ‘we’
feeling among members. While the intensity and
depth of this feeling is much higher among member
states, external actors also feel themselves identified
with the EU to different degrees.
The contribution of the EU to international
peace and cooperation mainly stems from its success
in institutionalizing the post-modern logic in
interstate relations that increasingly casts doubts on
the legitimacy of ‘self-other’ dichotomies. The post-
modern values of cosmopolitanism, multiculturalism,
secular universalism, multiple interdependencies and
soft-power oriented policies abroad have gradually
transcended the modern practices of balance of
power politics, realpolitik security strategies, self-
other distinctions and the prioritization of hard
power instruments in interstate relations.
The EU does not speak with one voice in the
realm of foreign policy. On foreign policy, security
and defense issues member states still preserve the
right to veto any decision they think is not in their
national interests (McCormick, 2014). Foreign
policy decisions are taken most of the time through
unanimity, despite the fact that the Lisbon Treaty
of 2009 broadened the scope of taking decisions
through the principle of qualified majority. The
are more privileged than European Parliament
and other organs of the European Union in terms
of foreign policy. The President of the European

Diplomacy
Council and the EU High Representative for
security and foreign policy are the most powerful
bureaucrats authorized to represent the EU in the
world. The head of the European Commission
is also influential. The High Representative is
also in charge of the European External Action
Service that can be considered as the ministry of
foreign affairs of the European Union. The EU has
diplomatic missions all around the globe and their
work is coordinated by the EEAS. Member states
are still the most influential actors of EU foreign
policy. Because foreign policy is very much about
national sovereignty and national security, member
states do not want to give up their right to veto any
decision that might endanger their interests.
Despite its decades-old success in eroding the
traditional understanding of diplomacy and foreign
policy, the EU has been lately facing various modern
challenges concerning the post-modern logic of
its integration process and international identity.
Though it was brought into existence as a peace
project in the immediate aftermath of the Second
World War and accomplished many successes over
decades, the EU of today is still far away from
fulfilling its desired goals that its founders set decades
ago. Despite all its intentions to help midwife a
post-modern polity at home and become a role
model for others abroad, the EU appears to have
underestimated how influential a role the modern/
traditional logics of power politics continue to play
in Europe and abroad. At stake is the EU’s ability
to deal with the emerging modern challenges while
remaining true to its post-modern aspirations.
Figure 7.3 Mogherini’s press statement on the
latest developments, Federica Mogherini - High
Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and
Security Policy / Vice-President of the Commission.
Source: https://www.flickr.com/photos/eeas/37685357026/
7
The Russian actions in Ukraine, Syria and
Eastern Europe confirm that the geopolitical
confrontations still haunt Europe. The challenges
posed by the Russian annexation of Crimea, hybrid
warfare tactics in eastern Ukraine and its military
involvement in Syria suggest that the constitutive
principles of the post-Cold war era security order
in Europe are now at stake.
The growing chaos and anarchy in the Middle
East and North Africa also presents the EU with a
very serious strategic challenge. The erosion of the
decades-long territorial borders in these regions,
particularly following the rise of Islamic State in
Iraq and Syria, not only puts the bilateral and
multilateral relations that the EU has developed
with the incumbent regimes in these regions in
jeopardy but also presents the EU members with
the problem of continuous migration. Figuring
out how to deal with the emerging humanitarian
problems in the spirit of EU’s multicultural and
universal integration has proved to be a fallacy as EU
members are still far away from adopting common
policies that offer long-term solutions. Neither the
well-established regional initiatives of the EU have
been revised in the process of adaptation to the
changing dynamics in the so-called greater Middle
Eastern region nor has the EU adopted specific
solutions to the emergent problems in the region
from a strategic perspective. The EU’s dealings
with the countries in the so-called MENA region
have neither contributed to the formation of a ‘we’
feeling between the northern and southern shores
of the Mediterranean nor allowed the EU members
to arrest the decline of interstate order in the
post-Arab Spring Middle East. The post-modern
practices inside the EU seem to have blinded the
Europeans to the modern/traditional dynamics of
power politics in its near abroad.
Recent years have witnessed the rise of illiberal,
populist, anti-integrationist, anti-immigrant and
anti-globalist parties across the European continent
(Mude, 2016, 25-30). The number of Europeans
who feel disappointed by the EU’s performance and
think that solutions to their problems should be
sought after at domestic levels has climbed up. As
of today, it would not be wrong to argue that the
EU suffers from a legitimacy crisis in the eyes of its
people. The institutions of the EU are now beset with
the democracy deficit problem. The lesser the input
of the European people in the formation of EU level
163
7
policies affecting their core interests and daily lives,
the more the democracy deficit grows. Investing too
much power in the supranational institutions and
Eurocrats based in Brussels appears to have caused a
mental gap between laymen and elites.
The EU’s post-modern integration process
seems now to be on life-support given the Brexit
decision of the British nation in the referendum
held in June, 2016, as well as the continuous
electoral victories of rightist and leftist populist
parties across the continent. The United Kingdom
leaving the EU is a fatal blow to EU’s credibility.
This has already caused alarm bells ring across the
continent. At stake is not only that the EU without
Britain would have lesser influence and geopolitical
clout across the globe but also this would likely
empower nationalist and anti-integrationist circles
elsewhere in Europe. Greece’s potential exit from
the Euro-zone might on the other hand bespeak
the failure of European efforts to forge common
economic and monetary policies inside the EU,
let alone the more challenging task of adopting
common positions on security and defense. The
idea of European integration being based on
common identities, social policies and legitimacy
of Brussels-based institutions might further erode
in the years to come should centrist politicians in
key EU members fail to provide solutions to the
daily problems of people and continue to loose
elections against fringe parties. The gap between
rich northerners and poor southerners might
further widen and the geopolitical competition
between Germany and France might intensify.
The latest crises engulfing EU members appear
to have brought forward the issue of leadership
inside the EU. Despite the fact that Germany has
come under limelight in this regard, it is still far
from certain that Germany has accepted to rise to
this challenge and other members, notably France,
have already acquiesced to German leadership
inside the union. From a principled point of view,
it would be good for the EU to see Germany take
on the mantle of leadership and help the Union
find its way in the uncharted waters of growing
challenges, for Germany seems to be the only
power inside the EU having this potential. The
German economy has coped with the financial
storms of the 2008 economic crisis much better
than others and continued to grow steadily and
Germany has weathered down the latest political
164
Diplomacy Practices of Global Powers
crisis despite the Christian Democrats and Social
Democrats losing some ground to illiberal populist
parties in the latest parliamentary elections held in
September 2017.
However, the debate on the comparative weight
of values and interests in German foreign policy
and the possibility of Germany transforming into
a normal foreign policy actor adopting a realpolitik
worldview in dealing with emerging modern/
realpolitik challenges at European and global
levels still lingers. Despite the fact German troops
were deployed outside German borders, that the
constitutional obstacles before the deployment
of German troops abroad were eased, that the
German government has taken the leading role in
the formation of European responses to Russian
assertiveness and the Greek crisis, the majorities
in Germany are still lukewarm to the idea that
Germany should prioritize its material power
capabilities and pragmatic interests at the espense
of its civilian power identity (Steinmeir, 2016,
106-113). Besides, the possibility of any German
domination of EU decision making processes
might attract the ire of other members.
The crisis of the EU can also be noticed in the way
how other global actors perceive the EU (Kleine-
Brockhoff, 2013). Far from having established
itself as a credible actor speaking with one voice,
the EU does still appear as a weak geopolitical actor
in the eyes of other key global actors. The prime
evidence of this is that the United States, Russia
and China have never given up on the time-tested
strategy of divide-and-rule in their relations with
the European Union. All continue to see the EU
as a leverage in their dealings with one another.
Partnership with European countries inside
NATO and EU is a must for the US to defeat the
Russian challenge in Eastern Europe and contain
the Chinese challenge in East Asia. Courting the
pro-Russia members of the EU and supporting
the pro-Russian social and political groups across
the continent is on the other hand the preferred
strategy of Putin’s Russia in its efforts to help create
fissures inside the transatlantic community. Similar
to Russia, China is also courting friendly countries
inside the EU and accelerating its effort to develop
interdependent economic relations with European
countries in the hope that this would deprive the
United States of an important leverage in East and
Southeast Asia.

Diplomacy
The failure of the EU to handle the modern
crises on its doorsteps and turn out to be a
credible diplomatic actor has a lot to do with its
overdependence on the United States. Despite the
fact that the strong American support to European
integration project has relieved the EU members of
the need to spend their scarce resources on security
and defense, this has gradually caused complacency
on their part. Too much dependence on American
security commitment has not only militated against
the EU’s ability to forge a distinctive European
approach to global security problems but also led
the EU members to underinvest in security and
common foreign policy.
DIPLOMACY OF CHINA
As the dynamics of global politics have been
going through transformative changes in recent
years, the prestigious position of the western actors
within the current international order has become
exposed to serious challenges. As is well known,
the current world order has come into being in
the aftermath of the Second World War under the
stewardship of the United States. The liberal world
order has reflected and facilitated the strategic
and economic interests of the western actors. The
United States, in close cooperation with western
European states, has led the key international
organizations since their inception, such as
the World Bank, the International Monetary
Organization, NATO and the EU. Other actors
were simply delegated to secondary roles within
such organizations and the final say almost always
rested with the United States.
Acting as the gatekeepers to the western
international community, such international
organizations have long played key roles in the
socialization of erstwhile non-western states into
the constitutive norms, rules and values of the
Western world. Consolidation and promotion
of the principles of individual entrepreneurship,
democratic way of government, minimum state
involvement in economy, rule of law, free trade,
secularization of societal relations and respect for
multiculturalism, constituted the backbones of the
western-led liberal world order. The assumption was
that non-western countries would one day join the
league of developed and powerful countries should
they transform themselves in line with such values.
7
For a long period of time this pro-western character
of international system has remained unquestioned
mainly because the power configurations of the
postwar era profoundly favored the western actors.
However, China now seems to be the country
that has the most potential to help re-structure
the dynamics of the liberal world order in the
years to come. For long, successive American
administrations have tended to believe that
China would likely transform into a responsible
stakeholder of the western-led liberal world
order because China was benefiting from this
economically (Campbell and Ratner, 2018, 60-70).
China’s unabated economic development would
consequently result in China becoming a liberal
democratic polity in the image of liberal states in
the West. The growing middle classes in China
would demand more political representation as
they begin to become richer. Unless China turned
out to become more democratic and representative,
the economic benefits of opening policy would not
be sustained for long.
That Chinese rulers have been pursuing the
so-called ‘peaceful rise/peaceful development’
strategy in their neighborhood since the late 1970s
appears also to have encouraged the American
leaders to prioritize the ‘strategy of engagement’
over the ‘strategy of containment’ in their
relations with China. China has not completed
its internal transformation process yet, and for
this to happen without interruption, a stable
external environment is critical. So stability in
East and South Asia has been in the interest of
both China and the United States. This suggests
that China cannot risk its internal transformation
process at home by confronting its neighbors and
key global actors, such as the United States, head-
on. The growing economic interdependence with
the United States is a requirement for China’s
economic development process. China has the
largest reserves in US dollars and its access to
American market, technology and foreign direct
investment is still important for years to come.
The financial crisis that hit western economies
in 2008 severely seems to have turned all such
western assumptions upside down. The economic
crisis in 2008 has not only weakened the specter
of the EU to become a global power, both in
economic and normative senses, but also made it
165
7
abundantly clear that the success of the American
economic model has been to a significant extent
tied to the interdependent economic relations
developed with the non-western world, most
notably China. The crisis and its aftermath have
made it unavoidably clear that the United States is
today the most indebted country on earth whereas
China the number one creditor country. Besides,
majorities across the globe seem to believe that
China, the aspiring hegemon, is on the rise whereas
the United States, the incumbent hegemon, in
terminal decline.
Whereas China deems its phenomenal rise
as part of its normalization process, the United
States finds in China a strong contender for
its global hegemony. While Chinese see their
country’s efforts to leave behind the ‘centuries of
humiliation’ for good as China’s rightful return
to its glorious days, the majority of westerners
tend to feel skeptical about the end results of this
process. To many Chinese, China had been the
cradle of global politics for ages by the time the
western European nations eclipsed China in terms
of economic output, technological innovations
and military capabilities. By the middle of the 19th
century, nearly half of global economic production
had originated from China. Therefore, the Chinese
believe that their country’s rise in recent decades
should not be interpreted as the success story of
an ordinary country climbing up the ladder of
power. Instead, Chinese share the view that China’s
recent successes are manifestations of China’s
normalization and returning to world history as a
major power (Xiang, 2016, 53-62).
China has now become the number one trading-
partner of not only its neighbors to the south and
east but also many developed countries in the West.
This suggests that these countries would do well to
pay significant attention to their access to Chinese
markets, as well as their ability to borrow from
China. Chinese leaders have already succeeded
in establishing indispensable mutual economic
relations with many countries across the globe.
The message that they have been unrelentingly
giving to others is that should Chinese economic
development slow down, meaning China no longer
acting as the global factory and Chinese customers
not buying western goods, this would severely
impact the global economy.
166
Diplomacy Practices of Global Powers
China, unlike other Asian tigers, namely
Taiwan, South Korea, Singapore and Hong Kong,
has not followed the strategy of protecting its
internal market behind trade walls and singling
out key sectors where the state would invest
overwhelmingly. Right from the very beginning of
its opening to the outside world in late 1970s, China
has adopted the view that China’s internal markets
would be open to foreign companies for investment
and China’s competitive advantage would emanate
from its cheap labor. It is striking that as of today
over half of Chinese exports are still being covered
by multinational corporations which operate their
factories in China. More than half of the profits
taking place out of the export of Chinese goods do
still go to western multinational companies. This
suggests that western companies are important
beneficiaries of China’s ongoing development. This
openness to foreign direct investment and foreign
goods, right from the very beginning of its economic
modernization process, has immensely contributed
to the competitive power of Chinese companies as
well. The number of Chinese companies, both state-
run and private, in the list of top 500 companies has
been steadily increasing.
A novel characteristic of China’s economic
development is the strong economic relations
that China has established with many countries
located in the non-western world. At issue is not
only China’s growing trade relations with other
rising developing powers, such as Brazil, India,
Indonesia, South Africa, Malaysia and Iran, but
also many underdeveloped countries in Africa
and South America. Such connections to the
non-western world seem to offer China two main
advantages (Friedberg, 2018, 7-40). On one hand,
Chinese factories could still continue producing
goods no matter their access to developed western
markets becomes difficult due to their contraction
during crisis times. On the other hand, China
could import many of the raw materials from these
countries that it needs for its production capacity
to continue. China is a resource poor country and
it needs to import commodities from abroad.
In order for the relationships established with
many resource-rich countries in Africa and Asia
not to appear as neo-colonial, China has adopted
a ‘no-strings attached’ policy in its relations with
those countries. China’s developmental and
infrastructural aids to these resource-rich poor

Diplomacy
countries aim at transforming such countries into
rich economies so that they could demand and buy
Chinese goods. Unlike western countries, China
does not make the way how those countries are
ruled internally an issue in its economic relations
with them. As opposed to western powers, China
does not ask those countries to fulfill some
preconditions in order to construct economic
relations with China as well as become eligible for
Chinese developmental aids.
The recently announced ‘One Road One
Belt’ Project and the formation of the Asian
Infrastructure and Investment Bank should be seen
from this perspective. Through such initiatives,
China is trying to give the message that it very
much values the development of underdeveloped
and developing countries because there is a
mutually constitutive relationship between China’s
development at home and the development of
non-developed others abroad. The improvement
of the infrastructural capacities of the countries on
which China is dependent for raw materials and to
which China exports goods are in the final analysis
in China’s national economic interests. Through
such initiatives Chinese leaders have been trying
to bring into existence China-friendly regional and
global environments in which China’s march to
global primacy would not only remain uncontested
but also be accommodated easily.
China’s rise also poses a challenge to the
established western powers because of its huge
continental size and high population. Every small
increase in per capita income in China will both lift
many Chinese people out of poverty and increase
China’s share in global economy. Size matters in
international politics. Should the current speed of
development continue in China over the next two
decades, Chinese economy will likely be twice the
size of American economy.
Unlike the nation-states of the western world,
China is a civilization-state which very much values
the following principles: a father-like status of the
state in the eyes of people, unitary state identity,
territorial integrity, societal cohesion, primacy
of family bonds over individuality, primacy of
state sovereignty over popular sovereignty, state’s
unquestioned involvement in economics and social
life, primacy of responsible and ethical statesmanship
over electoral legitimacy, resolving conflicts through
7
societal mechanisms and trust relationships rather
than legal instruments, primacy of hierarchical
relations within the society over egalitarianism and
primacy of shame culture over guilt culture. Such
are the values that westerners would find difficult to
accommodate (Jacques, 2012).
The main characteristic of Chinese foreign
policy, particularly concerning its relations with
the United States, seems to be avoiding taking
clear stances on issues that directly touch upon
vital American interests or global concerns. Unless
the issues at hand concern Taiwan, Hong Kong,
Tibet, Uighur region or the islands in the South
and East China Seas, China tends to eschew
taking responsibility in global governance issues.
This is a challenge to the West, for the costs of
maintaining global stability and providing global
commons increase dramatically absent the Chinese
contribution.
China should not be likened to other nation-
states, whose climbing up the ladder of power
hierarchy had in the past caused hegemonic wars
between incumbent and aspiring hegemons. China
is not openly questioning the established western
order by either forming anti-western coalitions of
states or doing its best to make sure that western-
led international organizations do not operate
smoothly. It is for sure that China, along with
many other rising powers, wants to see that its
growing ascendance in global power hierarchy be
accommodated institutionally and peacefully. In
case of western reluctance to do so, China does
not hesitate to mastermind the establishment
of alternative institutional platforms under his
guidance. The Asia Infrastructure and Investment
Bank should be seen from this perspective. Worth
underlining here is that China values external
democratization of global politics more than
internal democratization of national politics.
Reminiscent of its ages-old historical
background, today’s China is not pursuing a
strategy of global hegemony in such a manner as
being pursued by the United States since the end of
the Second World War. Seeing their empire-country
as the Middle Kingdom, Chinese rulers have
never adopted an imperial mission whose driving
logic was to conquer non-Chinese territories and
project Chinese norms and values onto others.
Even though they believe in the superiority of their
167
7
Diplomacy Practices of Global Powers

civilization, Chinese rulers have never engaged in China has also been trying to bring into
an empire building project whose goal was to bring existence rival international organizations that
civilization to barbarians. The expectation was reflect China’s interests and priorities much better
that others would at some time in future accept than the existing global institutions. The formation
and respect the legitimacy of China’s primacy and of Shanghai Cooperation Organization, BRICS,
pay their tributes to Beijing in return for Chinese New Development Bank, the Asian Infrastructure
benevolence and rewarding economic relations. and Investment Bank, the One Belt One Road
China wants to see a decentralized imperial order Initiative all attest to China’s determination to help
take place, first in East and South East Asia, in create alternative institutional structures that could
which China sits at the center and other states offer China-friendly solutions to global public
respect the superiority of Chinese values as well as good problems.
China’s centrality in their development.
China is against the idea of a universal civilization
as well as the practices of setting global standards of
human rights. No country whatsoever should have
the claim to universal truths or values. Therefore,
from China’s perspective, the promotion of liberal
democracy, or any other political ideology, should
be immediately discarded from the vocabulary
of foreign policy. Rules, values and norms are
relative and products of different time and space
configurations. This does not, however, mean that Figure 7.4
China does not adhere to a certain set of rules, Source: https://www.ft.com/content/08028d18-b976-
values and norms in its state-society relations and 11e7-9bfb-4a9c83ffa852
external dealings. Indeed, what seem to set apart
China from western powers are its commitment China’s foreign policy is made by the Chinese
to state-led capitalism, society-based morality, Communist Party organs many of which are
hierarchical organization of societal relations, chaired by the president of State. The head of the
centralized administrative system, a defensive state is also the secretary general of the party and
realpolitik security culture and a Confucian commander in chief of the people’s liberation army.
understanding of the Chinese state as a civilization. All state bureaucracy dealing with foreign policy
Similar to other great powers, China hopes that its is structured in a hierarchic and centralized way.
values and norms are shared by others. However, it The participation of civil society organizations and
does not construct its foreign relations on the basis other non-state actors in the formulation of China’s
of a normative understating in that it is China’s foreign policy interests is extremely limited. China
historical and civilizational mission to project its is a highly centralized and authoritarian state.
values abroad.
China views the United Nations (UN) and many
other international organizations as institutional
platforms within which it could counterbalance
the hegemony and primacy of the established
Western powers by actively contributing to their
functions. Taking an active stance within the
existing institutions simply provides China with
the tools to make sure that its voice be heard more
loudly. For example, China demands that its voting
rights within the International Monetary Fund or Figure 7.5 President Xi Jinping at a summit in Shanghai
the World Bank increase or that a Chinese national (Getty Images).
lead these institutions. Source: https://foreignpolicyblogs.com/2016/04/19/10-
characteristics-of-chinese-diplomacy-in-the-xi-jinping-era/

168

Diplomacy
DIPLOMACY OF RUSSIA
Since President Putin came to power in late
1990s, Russia has witnessed a national revival.
Having an imperial legacy in the background and
acting as one of the two superpowers of the Cold
War era, it is quite natural and understandable
that Russia wants to leave the troubled years of
the 1990s behind and put a serious claim to global
power status in the emerging century. Recently,
Russia has come under international limelight once
again following its annexation of Crimea into its
territory, the support that it gives to the separatist
groups in the eastern part of Ukraine and its military
involvement in Syria on the side of Assad regime.
Hardly a day passes without Russia being criticized
by western circles of pursuing aggressive, assertive
and neo-imperial policies in its near-abroad. The
major criticism directed to Russia is that unlike the
post-modern powers of the European Union and
the liberal power the United States, Russia acts as
a typical realpolitik power which deeply believes in
the primacy of material power capabilities, the use
of brute military force and commanding spheres of
influence in global power politics. Russia is believed
to have been acting as a nineteenth century power
in the twenty-first century.
It is for sure that Putin’s Russia has been at odds
with Western powers in terms of the constitutive
norms of the emerging world order and the role
that Russia might play in its construction. What
kind of a world order does Russia envisage and
what factors motivate Russia’s strategies and
policies abroad?
Putin’s Russia has been extremely aghast at
the primacy of western actors in world politics
and therefore has been striving to help bring into
existence a multipolar world order in which Russia
plays a decisive role (Stronski and Sokolsky, 2017).
Neither the established powers of the West nor
the rising powers of the East should take Russia’s
cooperation for granted in the unfolding global
rivalry between Washington and Beijing. Russian
leaders believe that Russia is an actor on its own
and its power resources, albeit their diminishing
value since the end of the Cold War era, suffice
for Russia to help bring into existence a Russia-
friendly regional and global order. Despite the
growing strategic rapprochement between Moscow
and Beijing in recent years, one should not jump
7
to the conclusion that Russia would act as a fiddle
to China whenever its relations with western actors
deteriorate. In the best of circumstances China
appears to be a trump card for Russia in its dealings
with Western powers. The closer Russia comes to
China, the stronger the Russian message that Russia
is not without alternatives. No matter how critical
the Chinese connection to Russia’s global power
status is, the dynamics of its relations with Western
actors deserve more attention while making sense
of Russia’s view of the emerging world order.
Active Russian agency in the establishment
of the Eurasian Economic Union, the Shanghai
Cooperation Organization and BRICSs should
be read as Russia’s growing determination to offer
an alternative world order to the one shaped by
western powers. In Russian strategic thinking,
the road to global primacy passes through the
entrenchment of Russia’s geopolitical influence in
Europe and Eurasia. It is where Russia finds itself
in strategic competition with the West.
The current Russian leadership has been quite
unhappy to see that western powers read the
dissolution of the Soviet Union as a victory for
the West, as well as the triumph of the western
way of life over all other alternatives. The reasons
why Russia could not resist the enlargement of the
western sphere of influence towards its western
borders were that Russia was internally weak and
a pro-western cadre was holding the reigns of the
country during the 1990s.
Despite the warnings of many influential
strategists, western powers tended to interpret the
dissolution of the Soviet Union as an historic victory
on their side and overlooked the Russian strategic
concerns for long. Rather than treating Russia as a
defeated power and imposing a peace settlement on
it, similar to what victories western powers did to
Germany in the immediate aftermath of the First
World War, they should have done their best to
make sure that post-Soviet Russia feel itself as part
of the emerging security order in Europe, similar to
how post-Napoleon France had been incorporated
into the Concert of Europe in 1815.
Russia has been quite discontent with NATO’s
enlargement towards the erstwhile communist
states of Central and Eastern Europe. Putin being
no exception, the Russian establishment of the
post-Cold era has been subscribed to the view
169
7
that Russia has been deceived by the Western
powers in that NATO’s enlargement occurred to
the detriment of Russia’s geopolitical interests and
priorities. Despite some counterfactual arguments,
it is still believed that the West promised Russia
not to enlarge NATO eastwards in return for
Russia’s acquiescence to Germany’s unification
and its eventual accession to NATO. A feeling of
containment and encirclement reigns in Russia.
The Yeltsin era in the 1990s did not witness
a serious breach in Russia’s relations with the
West, mainly because westernization had been the
dominant ideology in Moscow. Internal problems
constituted the main reasons why Russia had to
remain introverted during the 1990s and why
Russia’s objections to the Western encroachment
on its traditional areas of influence did not capture
the headlines.
In order to voice its strong criticism against
western aggrandizement, Russia needed to recover
from its economic malaise under the strong
leadership of President Putin. The improving
Russian economy and the growing need of western
powers to seek Russia’s help in responding to the
geopolitical challenges in the post 9/11 era seem
to have emboldened Russian leaders to openly
question the legitimacy of the liberal Western
order. The years of 2000s saw the U.S., in close
cooperation with the European allies, define
promotion of liberal democratic values across the
globe in its national security interests. The wars
against Al-Qaeda and Taliban in Afghanistan and
Saddam’s Iraq were defined as existential struggles
between the forces of good and the forces of evil.
Approaching democratization as a security strategy
might have been accepted legitimate by Russian
rulers if it had not spread to post-Soviet geography.
This very much accounts for why Russia has
been vehemently against the color revolutions in
Georgia, Ukraine and some Central Asian republics.
From Russia’s perspective these revolutionary
movements were masterminded by western circles
and carried out by local agents. Russian elites viewed
them as sinister western attempts at hollowing out
Russia’s influence in its traditional backyard. Seen
from Moscow, promotion of democratic values
in Russia’s near abroad cannot be seen isolated
from the geopolitical competition between Russia
and the West. This thinking seems also to be the
170
Diplomacy Practices of Global Powers
main reason why Russia fought against Georgia
in August 2008 and strongly opposed Ukraine’s
incorporation into the West through the signing
of an Association agreement between Ukraine
and the European Union in late 2013, as well as
Ukraine’s eventual accession to NATO. This also
explains why the Eurasian Union initiative should
be read as a counter measure by Russia in order
to limit the reach of the European Union into its
neighborhood.
In Russian thinking, western security
institutions, most notably NATO, should not be
the main regional platforms in which questions of
European security are discussed. Absent the Cold
War era confrontation between Washington and
Moscow, NATO should have already given way
to new institutional arrangements concerning
European security. The Russian President Putin
argued back in 2007 in Munich that a new security
architecture should be constructed in Europe that
would accommodate Russia’s security interests
much better than the existing platforms.
Figure 7.6
Russia’s objections to the primacy of the liberal
western order also emanate from its peculiar political
and cultural values. Unlike the developed western
economies which are built on the capitalist values,
Russian economy very much relies on the export
of commodities in a semi-close economy, such as
gas and oil. Unlike the Chinese model in which
capitalist modernization process could go hand in
hand with authoritarian state policies, Russia offers
a particular example of illiberal societies in which
the state is extremely involved in economics, social

Diplomacy
and political life. The idea that capitalist economic
modernization would eventually culminate in
political liberalization and democratization does
not strike a sympathetic chord in Russia. Russia
seems to have adopted a mercantilist economic
model in which many economic activities are
closely regulated and monitored by the state
and economic power is a means to political and
strategic influence at home and abroad. Becoming
rich seems to be difficult, if not impossible, without
benefiting from patronage and clientalist relations
established with key political figures.
Russia is a multi-lingual, multi-ethic and multi-
cultural state and this pushes Russian security elites
to put an overwhelming stress on Russia’s territorial
integrity and national sovereignty over all other
concerns. Unlike the western powers where post-
modern ways of arranging state-society relations
have taken deep roots and where issues of security
mostly concern low-politics issues, Russia offers
an example of traditional nation-states where
sovereignty, state survival and territorial integrity
are still the most important security issues.
In Russian geopolitical thinking, the notion of
‘sphere of influence’ occupies an important place
(Kotkin, 2016, 2-9). That seems to explain why
Russian leaders have felt extremely discontent
when they noticed that non-regional powers were
trying to get hold in Russia’ backyards. Russia is a
state where the mere existence of material power
capability counts a lot. Having the largest stockpile
of nuclear weapons all over the world, possessing
sophisticated conventional military capabilities,
and sitting on abundant natural resources and
a huge land mass are considered to be the main
power resources of Russia. In Russian thinking, the
weight of tangible power resources in overall power
calculations is more than the weight of intangible
soft power instruments.
Russia is a sovereignty-sensitive country and
Russian elites abhor their western counterparts
whenever the latter preach the virtues of liberal
democracy (Oliker, 2017, 7024). Putting the idea
of universal human rights at the center of global
politics and authorizing the United Nations or other
regional security organizations to help organize
multinational peace operations in conflict-riven
places contradicts Russia’s state-oriented security
and diplomatic culture. Russian uneasiness with
7
such multilateral UN-led operations can be seen
in Kosovo in 1999 and Libya in 2011. The Russian
position on the Syrian crisis also reveals that the
principle of not interfering with states’ internal
affairs, no matter how severe the internal conditions
are, still colors Russia’s international behaviors.
Russian rulers do not want to see that the
principle of ‘responsibility to protect’ drive
international involvement in conflict-riven places.
There are no universally-agreed human rights and
the use of force in the name of ‘responsibility to
protect’ would only mask western imperial designs
on other places.
Russia has put the notion of ‘sovereign
democracy’ at the center of its engagement with the
outside world, particularly the Western powers. This
suggests that Russian rulers do not deny the virtues
and moral status of democratic principles, yet they
tend to believe that what is meant by democracy is
very much informed by particular time and space
configurations. Historical experiences, geopolitical
realities and cultural values produce different
conceptualizations of democracy across the globe.
Recent years have also witnessed that President
Putin has been vociferously arguing in favor of
the revival of Russian nationalism imbued with
distinctive legacies of communism and Orthodox
Christianity. Today’s Russia is rebuilt on the red
values of communist era and the white values of
Orthodox Christianity. Ascribing a messianic
mission to Russia, Russian leaders wish to resurrect
the defunct Russian empire in new clothes that
acts as the protector of traditional Christian values
against the challenges stemming from the post-
modern/post-religion societies in the West and
religious fundamentalism in the East and South.
Moreover, it is also believed that the Russian
society is built on the primacy of patriarchal
and communal values instead of self-regarding
individualistic morality. Russian society evinces
a predisposition to communitarian ethics over
individualistic or cosmopolitan ethics. That is
to say that the meaning of life of an ordinary
Russian emanates from his/her belonging to the
larger Russian community in which common
societal values take priority over individual quest
for happiness and well-being. This perspective
in Russian thinking seems to lay behind the
objections to western notions of tolerance and
171
7
heterogeneity. A completely secular culture in
which people of different sex, faith, ethnicity,
sexual preferences, and languages are completely
equal before the law and the primary role of
state is to ensure this heterogeneity is something
unacceptable in Putin’s Russia.
Russia’s approach to the emerging world
order is also informed by the historical dynamics
of its relations with the western international
community. Without understanding the dynamics
of three alternative approaches towards the West
in Russia, one would find it difficult to make
sense of strong Russian objections to the primacy
of the liberal international order. On the one hand
exists a strong pro-western tradition in Russian
culture and history, according to which Russia’s
place is in the West and the road to modernity and
development goes through Russia’s acceptance of
western values and practices. The modernization/
westernization efforts during the imperial era seem
to have inspired the Russian leaders during the
1990s in their efforts to bring Russia much closer
to the West. On the other hand a strong resistance
to the West also exists in Russian history, whose
most exemplary manifestation took place during
the Cold War era. Here the goal is to define
Russia on the basis of strong opposition to liberal
western values as well as the characterization
of western states as Russia’s existential threats.
Finally, the so-called Eurasian school of thought
sits somewhere in the middle of these two polar
positions. According to Eurasianism, Russia is
both a European and Asian country at the same
time and Russia’s historical mission is to unite the
diverse communities in the Eurasian region under
Russia’s moral and political leadership. Russia is
the geopolitical hegemon of the Eurasian region
and without strong Russian leadership neither
Russia nor other Eurasian communities would
be in a position to restrain western and eastern
encroachments. Given Russia’s foreign and security
polices over the last decade, one could confidently
argue that Eurasianism has now become the
dominant school of thought in Russia.
Despite their different conceptualization of
the Western world, all of these schools of thought
share something in common, which is the idea that
Russia deserves to be treated respectfully and fairly
by Western actors. Russian elites are very much
obsessed with the ideas that Russia is historically and
172
Diplomacy Practices of Global Powers
empirically entitled to have an equal standing with
the West and Russia’s greatness and distinctiveness
should be recognized by outside actors. As
westerners question Russia’s equality and continue
to lecture Russians on the superiority of western
values and Russia’s shortcomings, Russia tends to
define itself in opposition to the West. And the more
the West challenges Russia’s claim to a geopolitical
sphere of influence in its neighborhood, the more
likely Russia treats the West and its liberal world
order negatively. This is now what is happening in
Russia’s relations with the West. Russia is a huge
country, has a long history of imperial rule in its
region and always defeated the external attempts at
subjugation and colonization. The victories against
Napoleon’s France and Hitler’s Germany offer the
most vivid examples of Russian success in standing
tall and strong in the face of external threats to its
very existence.
Russian foreign policy is most of the time made
by the president, in consultation with particular
state institutions that are supposed to aid the
president in this process. Russia is an extremely
centralized and authoritarian state suggesting that
foreign policy is mainly the business of the state.
3
Which particular points do you think
different schools of thought in Russian
diplomacy share in common?
CONCLUSION
This chapater has discussed the diplomacy of
global powers from a theoretical erspective as well
as examined the diplomacy practices of global
powers in detail. It is expected that the years ahead
will witness growing willingness on the part of
China and Russia to maximize their tangible and
intangible power capabilities while the U.S. and
EU trying to preserve their priviliges in the current
liberal international order.
Despite the fact that it is the combination of
the United States and China, however called G-2
or Chimerica, that holds the greatest sway in global
politics, it has increasingly become evident that
neither any of them nor any other great power is in

Diplomacy
a position to overwhelmingly shape global politics.
The power disparities between the ones at the top
and those that follow are not as huge as it had
been in previous eras. Today’s global powers are
not as mighty as those of the past and their ability
to keep their internal order immune to external
developments have tremendously decreased in
parallel to intensifying global interconnectedness
and interdependencies. The vulnerability of global
powers to external developments and the growing
need on their part to focus on internal restoration
and material power preservation/maximization,
rather than external norm projection, have become
more conspicuous than ever.
For example, following its annexation of Crimea
and military involvement in eastern Ukraine, the
western powers put sanctions on Russia. Russian
economy has deteriorated following the steep falls
in oil prices and the concomitant depreciation of
Russian currency against the U.S. dollar. Despite
the normative underpinnings of the Eurasian
Economic Union and Russia’s continuing efforts to
challenge the cardinal premises of the liberal world
order, Russia acted as a typical realpolitik power in
recent years that very much wanted to maximize
its material power capabilities as well as help
consolidate its sphere of influence in its backyards.
The years ahead will likely see this trend continue.
7
A slowdown can also be noticed in Chinese
economy given that the growth rate in China has
decreased to 7.5 percent. Despite China’s efforts
to help being into existence a China-friendly
environment in East and South East Asia, internal
concerns, such as growing income disparities within
the society, worsening environmental problems,
corruption and ethnic separatism have begun to
take a great toll on the country. Recent years have
seen that anti-Chinese alignment practices have
intensified in the region with the United States
improving its strategic relations with many Asian
countries that feel threatened by China’s rise. This
suggests that the years ahead will likely see Chinese
leaders put more focus on China’s material power
capabilities as well as the urgent internal problems.
The rise in great power confrontation across the
globe, the growing isolationist tendencies on the part
of the U.S., the increasing difficulties on the part of
the EU members to chart EU’s strategic orientation,
the multiplication of global players on many issue
areas, the growing security threats emanating from
the rise of transnational terrorist movements, the
growing anarchy and chaos within the international
system all point out to the fact global powers would
rather try to preserve and maximize their material
power capabilities than engaging in transformative
normative foreign policies abroad.
173
7
Diplomacy Practices of Global Powers

LO 1 Analyze the diplomacy practices of global

power from a theoretical perspective

Great powers ground their foreign policies on the basis of both tangible interests and intangible values.
The immense material power capabilities at their disposal empower them in their attempts at shaping
the external milieu, rather than merely responding to external stimuli in a reactionary manner. That is
also to say that adopting a soft-power oriented foreign policy approach is likely to be the prerogative
of strong hard powers. Investing in value projection abroad and relying on ‘power of attraction’ in de-
aling with others indirectly require a good deal of hard power capability. Great powers do not only feel
secure in terms of their territorial integrity but also find it easy to parley their immense material power
Summary

capabilities to value-oriented transformative policies abroad. Great powers do not only aim at maxi-
mizing their power capabilities at the expense of their rivals but also endeavor to midwife a particular
external environment that reflects their values and norms. It is not easy to ascertain when great powers
prioritize value-oriented transformative foreign policies or put power maximization at the center of
their external behaviors. These two concerns are most of the time intermingled with each other and
meeting one generally requires the fulfillment of the other. Just as immense material power capabilities
enable great powers to set in motion value-oriented transformative foreign policies, successful normati-
ve/transformative foreign policies help them bring into existence suitable environments in which they
find it much easier to preserve and improve their material well-being.

LO 2 Asses the diplomatic practices of major global powers,

such as United States, European Union, China and Russia

Making sense of foreign policy and diplomatic practices of the U.S. in the Middle East cannot be pro-
perly accomplished without taking into account the ideational/value-oriented logic of democracy pro-
motion along with the materialist/interest-related logic of furthering regional stability. Similarly, the
post-Cold War era American efforts to invest more in East Asia have aimed at both containing China’s
rise materially and ensuring China’s integration and socialization to the liberal international world
order normatively. Likewise, the Chinese foreign and security policy reflects the realpolitik interest of
limiting the access of external actors to East and South East Asia as well as the normative aspiration
of midwifing a China-friendly environment in which Pax-Sinica is deemed legitimate. Russia’s foreign
policy undertakings in Eastern Europe, wider Black Sea and wider Middle Eastern regions do also
manifest a similar logic. Many Russian diplomatic activities target both maximizing Russia’s sphere
of influence in such locations and convincing other actors that the values of ‘sovereign democracy’,
‘inviolability of territorial borders’, ‘non-interference in internal affairs of other states’ and ‘great power
primacy’ are seen legitimate.

174

Diplomacy
1 Global powers are those that try to: _____
a. Deal with other actors based on interests
b. Shape international environment based on their
values and global visions
c. Define their foreign policy in reference to their
material capabilities
d. Respond to external developments in a
reactionary manner
e. Deal with the world as it is
2 Middle and small powers are most of the time
concerned with: _____
a. changing the world in line with their values
b. establishing their own sphere of influence
c. securing their survival in the world of anarchy
and uncertainty
d. maximizing their economic power capacity
e. pursuing a normative and transformative foreign
policy
3 Liberal Internationalism has profoundly
shaped the foreign policy and diplomacy practices
of: _____
a. The European Union
b. Russia
c. China a. Try to gain leverage in their relations with
d. The United States
e. Turkey
4 Neo-conservatives in the United States argue
in favor: _____
a. Supporting relations with illiberal authoritarian
countries
b. Promoting American values and liberal
democracy through international organization
and multilateral diplomacy
c. Disengaging the world and turning inwards
d. Adopting a realist foreign policy
e. Using force and military instruments in
transforming illiberal states in the image of
America’s values.
7
5 President Obama of the United States argued
in favor of _____
a. Focusing on nation-building in the US and
downsizing American military involvements
abroad
Test Yourself
b. Using force to transform other countries in the
image of American values and norms
c. Pursuing a primacist foreign policy aiming
at preserving the United States’ global
hegemony
d. Adopting unilateralism and transactionalism in
the pursuit of US foreign policy interests
e. Increasing the number of US troops abroad
decisively.
6 The European Union has in recent years been
concerned with the rise of: _____
a. Populism
b. Anti-immigration political parties
c. Anti-integrationist and anti-globalist movements
d. British demand to leave the European Union
e. the United States’ growing commitment to
European security
7 Other global powers: _____
the European Union by pursuing divide-and-
rule tactics
b. Treat the European Union as a realpolitik
security actor with strong military power
capabilities
c. Support the EU integration process
d. Encourage the European Union to become a
more active global power across the globe
e. Support the attempts at improving EU’s ability
to speak with one voice in foreign policy
175
7
8 Russian diplomacy during the post-Cold War
era aims at _____
a. Re-creating the Soviet Union as a communist
global power
Test Yourself
b. Ensuring Russia’s membership in the European
Union and NATO
c. Creating a global security alliance with the
United States
d. Preventing European Union and NATO from
enlarging towards Russia’s borders
e. Establishing a post-modern Russian empire in
the image of liberal democratic values
176
Diplomacy Practices of Global Powers
9 China is a global power that believes in ____
a. the primacy of universal human rights
b. the reformation of existing international insti-
tutions to make more room for China
c. the formation of an anti-American alliance with
the European Union and Russia
d. continuation of US’ global hegemony
e. imposition of China’s values onto other states
10 ‘One Belt One Road’ project and the Asian
Infrastructure and Investment Bank are the
initiatives of: _____
a. The United States
b. European Union
c. China
d. Japan
e. Russia
 7
Diplomacy

If your answer is incorrect, review the If your answer is incorrect, review the
1. b 6. e
section on “Diplomatic Practices of Global section on “Diplomacy of the European
Powers” Union”

If your answer is incorrect, review the If your answer is incorrect, review the

Answer Key for “Test Yourself”

2. c 7. a
section on “Diplomatic Practices of Global section on “Diplomacy of the European
Powers” Union”

If your answer is incorrect, review the

3. d 8. d If your answer is incorrect, review the
section on “Diplomacy of the United
section on “Diplomacy of Russia”
States”

If your answer is incorrect, review the

4. e 9. b If your answer is incorrect, review the
section on “Diplomacy of the United
section on “Diplomacy of China”
States”

If your answer is incorrect, review the

5. a 10. c If your answer is incorrect, review the
section on “Diplomacy of the United
section on “Diplomacy of China”
States”

Suggested answers for “Your Turn”

Comment on the key characteristics of global powers in terms of
their foreign policy and diplomacy.

“Great powers are in a much better position than middle and small-sized po-
wers to ground their foreign policies on the basis of both tangible interests and
intangible values. The immense material power capabilities at their disposal em-
power them in their attempts at shaping the external milieu, rather than merely
responding to external stimuli in a reactionary manner. That is also to say that
adopting a soft-power oriented foreign policy approach is likely to be the pre-
rogative of strong hard powers. Investing in value projection abroad and relying
on ‘power of attraction’ in dealing with others indirectly require a good deal of
your turn 1 hard power capability. Great powers do not only feel secure in terms of their
territorial integrity but also find it easy to parley their immense material po-
wer capabilities to value-oriented transformative policies abroad. Unlike some
middle powers and many small-sized powers, great powers have the luxury of
helping bring into existence a particular external environment to their liking, as
well as making use of the existing power balances within the system to maximize
their material power capabilities. Stated somewhat differently, great powers do
not only aim at maximizing their power capabilities at the expense of their rivals
but also endeavor to midwife a particular external environment that reflects
their values and norms.”

177
7
Diplomacy Practices of Global Powers

Comment on the roots of isolationism in the diplomacy of the

United States

“At its foundation, the United States proved to be different from traditional
powers in Europe and other continents. The immigrant nature of the Ameri-
can society led the founders of the republic to build their country on the basis
Suggested answers for “Your Turn”

of liberal, democratic and pluralist norms, further enshrining the principles of

individual freedom, free entrepreneur-ship, limited government and checks and
balances in the Constitution. In the realm of diplomacy and foreign policy, the
rulers of the country long shunned the practices of getting involved in other
states’ internal affairs and becoming part of geo-political competitions in other
your turn 2 continents. The geographical location of the country, being walled from other
places through two oceans to the east and west, enabled the early generations to
focus their attention solely on economic development and political cohesion at
home. Unless other continents, most notably Europe and Asia, came under the
domination of an anti-American power block and unless any other global po-
wer threatened the U.S. national interests by trying to take a strong presence in
America’s near abroad, the U.S. leaders did not show strong enthusiasm to pur-
sue ambitious policies to institutionalize American dominance across the globe.
Hence the strong ‘isolationist’ impulse in American diplomatic practices.”

Which particular points do you think different schools of

thought in Russian diplomacy share in common?

“Despite their different conceptualization of the Western world, all of these

schools of thought share something in common, which is the idea that Russia
deserves to be treated respectfully and fairly by Western actors. Russian elites
are very much obsessed with the ideas that Russia is historically and empirically
entitled to have an equal standing with the West and Russia’s greatness and
distinctiveness should be recognized by outside actors. As westerners question
Russia’s equality and continue to lecture Russians on the superiority of western
your turn 3
values and Russia’s shortcomings, Russia tends to define itself in opposition
to the West. And the more the West challenges Russia’s claim to a geopolitical
sphere of influence in its neighborhood, the more likely Russia treats the West
and its liberal world order negatively. This is now what is happening in Russia’s
relations with the West. Russia is a huge country, has a long history of imperial
rule in its region and always defeated the external attempts at subjugation and
colonization. The victories against Napoleon’s France and Hitler’s Germany of-
fer the most vivid examples of Russian success in standing tall and strong in the
face of external threats to its very existence.”

178

Diplomacy
References
Biden, Joeseph R Jr and Michael Carpenter (2018).
“How to Stand Up to the Kremlin”, Foreign
Affairs, 97/1:
Bremberg, Niklas (2015). The European Union as
a Security Community-Building Institution:
Venues, Networks and Co-operative Security
Practices”, Journal of Common Market Studies,
53/3: 674–692.
Campbell, Kurt M and Ely Ratner (2018). “The
China Reckoning How Beijing Defied American
Expectations”, Foreign Affairs, 97/2: 60-70.
Friedberg, Aaron L (2018). “Globalization and
Chinese Grand Strategy”, Survival, 60/1: 7-40.
Fukuyama, Francis (1992). The End of History and the
Last Man. (New York: The Free Press).
Goodby, James E (2014). “The Survival Strategies of
Small Nations”, Survival, 56/5: 31-39.
Haas, Richard N (2017). “Where to go from here
Rebooting American Foreign Policy”, Foreign
Affairs, 96/4: 2-9.
Ikenberry, G. John (2011). American Foreign Policy
Theoretical Essays, (Boston: Wadsworth), 6th ed.
Ikenberry, G. John (2018). “The End of liberal
international order?”, International Affairs, 94/1:
7–23.
Jacques, Martin (2012). When China Rules the World.
(New York: Penguin Books).
Johnstone, Andrew (2011). “Isolationism and
Internationalism in American foreign relations”,
Journal of Transatlantic Studies, 9/1: 7-20.
Kaplan, Fred (2016). “Obamas Way The President in
Practice”, Foreign Affairs, January-February, 46-63.
Kleine-Brockhoff, Thomas (2013). Weighing Europe
How Europe’s Global Partners Assess Power and
Influence of a Region in Crisis. The German
Marshall Fund of the United States,
7
Kotkin, Stephen (2016). “Russia’s Perpetual
Geopolitics”, Foreign Affairs, 95/3: 2-9.
Layne, Christopher (2018). “The U.S.-China Power
Shift and the End of the pax Americana”,
International Affairs 94/1: 89–111.
Lobell, Steven E., Norrin M. Ripsman and Jefrey W.
Taliaferro (eds.) (2009). Neoclassical Realism, the
State and Foreign Policy. (Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press).
McCormick, John (2014). Understanding the
European Union A Concise Introduction. (New
York: Palgrave/macmillan).
Mearsheminer, John J (2003) The Tragedy of Great Power
Politics. (New York: W.W. Norton and Company).
Milne, David (2015). The Art and Science of American
Diplomacy. (New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux).
Mude, Cas (2016). “Europe’s Populist Surge A Long
time in the making”, Foreign Affairs, 95/6: 25-30.
Neack, Laura (2014). The New Foreign Policy. (Maryland:
Rowman and Littlefield Publishers), 3rd ed.
Oğuzlu, Tarık (2013). “Realism versus Liberalism
in Turkish Foreign Policy: What does the Arab
Spring Herald?”, Ortadogu Analiz 5/56, 39-51.
Oliker, Olga (2017). “Putinism, Populism and the
Defence of Liberal Democracy”, Survival, 59/1:
7-24.
Xiang, Lanxin (2016). “Xi’s Dream and China’s
Future”, Survival, 58/3: 53-62.
Smith, Steve, Amelia Hadfield and Tim Dunne (eds.)
(2012). Foreign Policy Theories, Actors, Cases.
(Oxford: Oxford University Press), 2nd ed.
Steinmeir, Frank-Walter (2016). “Germany’s New
Global Role Berlin Steps Up”, Foreign Affairs,
95/4: 106-113.
Stronski, Paul and Richard Sokolsky (2017). The
Return of Global Russia An Analytical Framework.
179
 Practice of Diplomacy:
Negotiation, Mediation and
Chapter 8 Diplomatic Agreement
After completing this chapter you will be able to:

1 2
Analyze how parties of a given negotiation
Learning Outcomes

Compare the motivations of negotiating parties process form their win-sets for international
in various international negotiations. bargaining.

3 Note the basic procedures for formal and

informal mediation practices. 4 Evaluate the motivations of the mediators in
international conflicts.

5 Categorize different types of diplomatic

agreements. 6 Examine the different procedures of ratification
for diplomatic agreements.

Chapter Outline Key Terms

Introduction Diplomatic practices
Negotiation negotiation
Mediation mediation
Diplomatic Agreement informal mediation
formal mediation
diplomatic agreement
ratification
peace accords

180

Diplomacy
INTRODUCTION
Two systemic wars (First World War and
Second World War) fought in 20th century taught
the powers of Europe and world in general that
settlement of interstate problems through war
causes tremendous economic costs, catastrophic
humanitarian consequences and complete
destruction of the all parties included in the war.
With the experience gained from these systemic
wars, the new world order was established to
promote more diplomacy and put more decisive
restrictions on use of force in world politics.
Especially the horror of the Second World War has
been quite influential in the construction of this
new world order. In this regard, it is fair to argue
that the practice of diplomacy has gained a greater
significance in the post-Second World War world
order.
Previous chapters elaborated on important
topics such as how we define diplomacy, how
modern diplomacy emerged, how institutions of
diplomacy were consolidated and how all these were
introduced to Ottoman Empire. This chapter rather
is concerned with addressing specific tools and
instruments utilized in the practice of diplomacy.
In what follows, instruments and procedures of
negotiation, mediation and diplomatic agreements
are elaborated and discussed. Within this context,
specific procedures of conducting negotiations are
explained and examples from world politics are
noted. Then, third party mediation is analyzed
as a significant diplomatic practice. Finally, how
diplomatic agreements are finalized is discussed
and several examples from current international
relations are provided.
NEGOTIATION
Negotiation as a diplomatic tool lies in the center
of the overall diplomatic practices. In fact, two
words, diplomacy and negotiation, are often used
interchangeably. Yet, overall conduct of diplomacy
cannot be reduced to negotiations. Negotiating
with another party is rather a specific sector of
diplomatic practices. Diplomacy, on the other
hand, encompasses a broader variety of practices
varying from routine correspondence between
parties to negotiations and agreements. Therefore,
diplomatic negotiations take place within a more
specific context, focuses on one or set of problems
and issues between the parties (Barston 2014, 32).
8
“Negotiation can be defined as an attempt
to explore and reconcile conflicting positions in
order to reach an acceptable outcome. Whatever
the nature of the outcome, which may actually
favour one party more than another, the purpose
of negotiation is the identification of areas of
common interest and conflict” (Barston 2014, 51).
Based on this definition, first thing to clarify
is to emphasize that the term negotiation refers to
the process instead of the outcome. In a similar
way, Bercovitch and Jackson define “negotiation
as a process by which states and other actors
communicate and exchange proposals in an
attempt to agree about the dimensions of conflict
termination and their future relationship”
(Bercovitch and Jackson 1997: 25-26). It should
be noted that negotiation processes may end up
with a reconciliation committed by all parties or
fail to produce an agreement. In other words, not
all negotiations are finalized with success, instead,
some negotiation processes end up with deadlocks
or partial success and lead to new processes.
Negotiating with other party or multiple parties
is one of the major diplomatic practices. Yet, the
ultimate goal that is aimed to be achieved through
negotiations may vary from case to case, from
actor to actor and from time to time. Firstly, actors
may use negotiations as a minor tactic within a
greater strategy. In such instances, negotiations
may be seen as a tool to gain some time by the
actors. In such cases, actors are not convinced that
negotiating with the counterparty would bring in
the desired results that is acceptable. Nonetheless,
the actor does not feel itself ready or prepared
to put the necessary tool in motion. Under such
circumstances, initiating a negotiation process or
consenting to take part in a process initiated by
the counter party or a third party would seem a
plausible instrument for gaining time to get to
the desired level of readiness for the necessary
action. In other words, a negotiation process
which includes an actor with such a motivation
usually fails to produce a negotiated and reconciled
solution to the issue on the table. Yet, it should also
be noted that interests and intentions of the actors
are dynamic and may change once they are in a
negotiation process. In several cases, negotiation
processes with actors which were quite reluctant
and saw the whole process in pragmatic terms have
been fruitful and ended up with settlements. An
example of a negotiation process which is used
181
8
Practice of Diplomacy: Negotiation, Mediation and Diplomatic Agreement

as a tactic to gain time is the talks between the
government of Sri Lanka and Tamil Tigers (Weiss
2011). The fight between the government forces
and Tamil Tigers, a secessionist guerrilla group,
lasted more than two decades and caused thousands
of casualties on both parties. The negotiations
between the parties were initiated once again in
early 2008, yet the failure of the process triggered
a heavy assault by the government forces on Tamil
Tigers in early 2009. In May 2009, the government
declared victory and Tigers admitted the defeat.
Later, it was understood that the government of Sri
Lanka was actually using the negotiation process
which was relatively calm and peaceful to prepare
for a final attack to defeat the Tigers decisively and
annihilate the organization. In fact, it was clear that
Sri Lankan army was mobilizing and preparing for
the attack since a long time frame including the
negotiation period.

figure: 8.1 Participants of High-Level United Nations-Central Asian Dialogue on Implementing the United Nations
Global Counter-Terrorism Strategy in Central Asia
Source: https://unrcca.unmissions.org/un-secretary-general-commends-central-asian-countries-adoption-ashgabat-
declaration-countering

Secondly, parties may determine a set of goals to achieve through negotiations and be satisfied if they can
end up at any point within this range in the end of the negotiations. This is called win-set. This concept is
coined by Putnam in his famous article in which he defined diplomatic negotiations as a “two-level game”
(Putnam 1988). Putnam argues that state actors play a two-level game in their conduct of diplomacy. The
first level is the domestic level. In the domestic game, the actor needs to consider different factors varying
from satisfying the public to surviving in the office. In other words, domestic political dynamics such as
elections and inter-party competitions are influential in the domestic game. The decision maker aims to get
the support of the domestic institutions and audience before starting the second level of the game, namely the
international negotiation with other parties. The support that the actor mastered in the first level broadens
the win-set of the actor for the second level. In this regard, a win-set is set of desired outcomes that would
be achieved through international negotiations. For an actor, any outcome of negotiation within this range
would be acceptable, whereas the outcomes out of this win-set spectrum would count as loss and failure,
this is unacceptable. On that sense, it is possible to frame negotiations as a practice in which actors can
compromise based on the scope of their win-sets. Larger win-sets on both or all parties make the negotiations
more likely to end up with success. Putnam suggests that “agreement is possible only if those win-sets overlap,
and the larger each win-set, the more likely they are to overlap. Conversely, the smaller the greater the win-
sets are, the greater the risk is that the negotiations will break down” (Putnam, 1988: 438). In this regard, it
should be noted that international negotiations are not only shaped in the international arena but they are
significantly shaped through the interplay between the domestic and external spaces.

182

Diplomacy
WIN-SET
Win-set is a term coined by Robert Putnam in his
famous article that he developed a framework for
foreign policy decision-making (Putnam, 1988).
According to Putnam’s framework, win-set of an
actor can be defined as any desirable outcome from
an international bargaining process. In other words,
any outcome within the range of its win-set would
be considered as gain by the actor. The formation of
this win-set, according to Putnam, is directly related
with the domestic political dynamics. Therefore,
win-sets that determine the foreign policy agenda
of a country is directly connected with the domestic
politics of that country, according to Putnam’s
framework.
Thirdly, negotiating parties can be motivated for
setting a norm in a broader level. This is usually the
case for issues that concern broad range of audience.
For instance, negotiations on issues such as trade
regimes, environmental issues, and humanitarian
causes can be given as instances of such negotiations.
In these cases, negotiations are usually conducted
within the form of a congress or convention and
multiple parties interact through these platforms.
Such diplomatic interactions take place once an
internationally recognized problem emerge or most
actors share a similar perspective on an issue. For
instance, the negotiation processes that led to Kyoto
Protocol and Paris Agreement on Climate Change
are typical examples of such multiparty negotiations.
Throughout such negotiation processes, parties work
on a common plan that set certain criteria to be
committed for all the signatory actors.
Another noteworthy question is about the possible
parties that would be included in a negotiation process;
in other words, which actors take a seat around the
negotiation table? Since diplomacy is understood as
a practice that takes place between states, the natural
answer to this question emphasizes state actors. Yet,
not all negotiations run between states. Obviously,
state to state negotiations constitute the vast majority
of all diplomatic negotiations. Interstate negotiations
may be conducted on various issues. Land and sea
borders, water issues (Dinar 2000), settlement of
violent conflicts, trade and customs issues and other
specific problems between states can be subjects of
interstate diplomatic negotiations. It should also be
noted that sometimes states negotiate with political
8
entities that they do not recognize as a sovereign state.
Diplomatic negotiations with de facto states can be
given examples of such interactions. For instance,
the negotiations on sea borders between China and
Taiwan are typical examples of this sort. Although
China does not recognize Taiwan as a sovereign
state, it did not form an obstacle for the Chinese
government to contact the Taiwanese authorities
directly within the context of negotiations (Saunders
and Kastner 2009).
Secondly, negotiations may take place between
states and non-state actors (Cooper and Hocking
2000). Especially in the post-Cold War era, the
interactions between states and non-state actors
significantly intensified. Within the context of
globalization, non-state actors found a room in
world politics and started to practice a certain degree
of agential power. Therefore, both the theory and
the practice of diplomacy developed in a manner
to address the gradually intensifying interaction
among states and non-state actors. In this regard,
who is a non-state actor appears as a valid question.
The term non-state actor may refer to a wide
variety of actors varying from a multinational
private company to a civil society organization
(such as NGOs), from a terrorist organization to a
transnational solidarity movement. As noted above,
negotiation processes between states and non-state
actors become more common especially in the post-
Cold War term. Several examples can be given. For
instance, after the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico,
the government of Mexico and British Petroleum
were engaged in a long negotiation process for the
compensation of the environmental pollution in
the region (Parlett and Weaver 2011). After the
negotiations, BP and Mexican government agreed
on the biggest compensation that is undertaken by
a private company in the history. Another example
of state to non-state negotiation is those taking place
between governments and terror organizations and
insurgency groups (Neumann 2007). For example,
the negotiations between the British government and
the Irish Republican Army (IRA) is a typical example
of negotiation processes between a government and
an insurgency/terrorist organization. After long talks
and negotiations, in 2005, IRA was convinced to
leave the guns and will continue to its actions only
in legal political space. Negotiation processes from
state to non-state actors can also take place between
governments and civil society organizations. Paris
Agreement on Climate Change is a good example
of such a process.
183
8
Practice of Diplomacy: Negotiation, Mediation and Diplomatic Agreement

figure 8.2 Executive Secretary of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change Christiana Figueres,
Secretary General of the United Nations Ban Ki Moon, Foreign Affairs Minister and President-designate of COP21 Laurent
Fabius, and France’s President Francois Hollande raise hands together after adoption of a historic global warming pact at
the COP21 Climate Conference in Le Bourget, north of Paris, on Dec. 12, 2015. Anadolu Agency—Getty Images
Source: http://time.com/4723481/donald-trump-paris-agreement-withdraw/

Thirdly, sometimes international diplomatic

negotiations can be among non-state actors. Such
DDR IN PEACE NEGOTIATIONS
negotiation processes usually take place after
DDR stands for disarmament, demobilization and
multiparty civil wars (Raeymaekers et al. 2008).
reintegration. DDR is considered as an essential
Such civil wars appear in weak state structure, leave
part of contemporary peace agreements. Especially
destructive consequences and cause to failed-state
several African states such as Liberia, Sierra Leone,
structures. In such fragile environments, several
Ivory Coast and Uganda experienced severe civil
armed groups get engage in violent conflict to
wars in post-colonial period. Inevitably, the efforts
fill the power vacuum. Negotiation among them
for settlement of these conflicts had to focus on
usually starts following the mediation initiative by
the status of the former combatants. In fact, many
a third party. In such negotiations, parties discuss
peace efforts which aimed an immediate ceasefire
how to share power in post-conflict state-building
and neglected the status of former combatants
process. Disarmament, demobilization and
failed or violence recurred in spite of signature of
reintegration (DDR) of the former combatants
a peace accord. Thus, peace negotiations today
constitute a major topic in a negotiation process
include detailed discussions about how to disarm,
running among insurgency groups. Peace talks
demobilize the ex-combatants. Reintegration of
initiated by ECOWAS in Liberia and Sierra Leone
former warriors to the society is also of utmost
after protracted civil wars can be considered as
importance in order to prevent them to engage
good examples of negotiation processes facilitated
in crime in the post-conflict period. For more
by an international organization for the insurgency
information, visit the webpage of United Nations
groups to discuss power-sharing in the post-conflict
DDR Resource Centre. http://www.unddr.org/
term (Halistoprak 2015).

184
 8
Diplomacy

Finally, international diplomatic negotiations can include an international organization and a specific
state government. Acceptance to an international organization is a typical topic for such a negotiation.
Another possible subject matter for such a negotiation can be focusing on a behavior of a government which
is not welcomed by international community and the international organization would initiate a process
to convince that government to commit certain internationally recognized standards or principles. The
nuclear negotiations between the government of Iran and International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) is a
good example for such a negotiation that took place between a government and an authorized international
organization (Sebenius and Singh 2012).

figure 8.3 Reza Najafi (right), Iran’s ambassador to the International Atomic Energy Agency, attends the IAEA Board
of Governors meeting at agency headquarters in Vienna on June 2, 2014. At left is Surood Najib, Iraq’s ambassador to
the IAEA. (Photo credit: Samuel Kubani/AFP/Getty Images)
Source: https://www.armscontrol.org/ACT/2015_12/News/Iran-Dismantling-Centrifuges-IAEA-Says

Who are the agents of diplomatic negotiations?
For state actors, the answer to this question is fairly
an easy one. States are usually represented by the
diplomats of their respective ministries of foreign
affairs in international diplomatic negotiations.
Sometimes, elected ministers of foreign affairs
directly take part in the negotiation committee.
In a few cases, governments appoint a responsible
person, such as an envoy, as the head of negotiating
committee. Such an envoy may or may not be from
the government or bureaucracy. Governments tend
to select such representatives exclusively from a
bunch of different sectors ranging from artists to
academics and retired statespersons. Such special
envoys appointed by a government as in charge
of negotiations usually appear as figures who are
respected domestically and internationally by
a wide range of audience (Zartman and Faure,
2005: 15). The motivation of governments in
appointing a person outside the government for
negotiations is to have someone in charge who
has a public attractiveness so that bargaining
leverage could be broaden accordingly (Niemann
2004). At this point, it should be noted that the
power given to these representatives, diplomats or
negotiation committees is of utmost importance
for their successful negotiation skills. If the agents
of negotiations are rendered in fully in charge and
given the power of decision-making, this power
usually strengthens the hand of the committee. In
other words, if the one party in the negotiations
feels that the counterparty has no decision-making
power, the negotiation talks may turn into an
unproductive interaction and may play even a
worsening role in the overall relations.
Success of negotiations is directly dependent
upon the attitudes of the negotiating parties.
Galtung (2015) argues that if the attitudes of the

185
8
Practice of Diplomacy: Negotiation, Mediation and Diplomatic Agreement
respective parties in the negotiations rely on a zero-
sum understanding, likelihood of failure is greater.
Instead, if parties are sincere about their will for
settlement and they internalize win-win alternatives,
it is most likely that parties will agree on a common
ground to settle the problem. Galtung notes that
sometimes talks may get stuck. In such situations,
the role played by the moderator or the mediator
is of utmost importance. In potential deadlock
situations, the moderator should provide a new
opening, which Galtung calls transcend approach
to negotiations (Galtung, 2015: 32), which brings
us to the role of mediators.
1 talks to labor management negotiations to
Explain the concept of win-set
and discuss how it is related to
domestic politics of a country.
MEDIATION
The need for and use of mediation in diplomatic
practices usually appear when there is a protracted
conflict between two or more parties. In some
cases, conflicts develop in a manner that gets stuck
on a deadlock point. Consequences of the conflict
become destructive and inhumane for all fighting
parties. Yet, parties do not want to be the initiator
for an offer to negotiate as they think this could be
perceived as a sign for weakness for other parties.
Thus, factions find themselves in a situation that
forces them to keep fighting although they are sick
and tired of fighting and waiting for a ceasefire to sit
and talk about the settlement of the conflict. Under
such circumstances, an initiative for mediation plays
a very important role in the facilitation of the contact
among the parties (Bercovitch and Rubin 1992).
It is important to note at the outset that
mediation has a long history in the conduct of
inter-community affairs. Tracing the history of
mediation can easily takes us back to ancient
times (Woolford and Ratner, 2008: 41). In pre-
modern societies, due to the lack of consolidation
and centralization of state institutions, conflicts,
violent or non-violent, had to be dealt within
the local societal structures. Land disputes,
trade disagreements and marital problems were
186
facilitated through the intervention of locally
respected figures. Yet, modern mediation that
appeared as an established practice of diplomacy
developed in accordance with the necessities of the
contemporary world politics.
The definition of the mediation is a good
starting point to investigate the basics and the
procedures of the mediation. There are various
approaches to mediation’s general definition. Greig
and Diehl (2012: 2) defines mediation as a tool for
conflict management:
“Mediation is a conflict management tool
used widely across a diverse set of contentious
cases, running the gamut from divorce settlement
peace efforts between warring states. Regardless
of the type of conflict to which it is applied,
the distinguishing feature of mediation is the
introduction of an outside or third party into the
negotiation process between the disputing sides
with, at least partially, the aim of producing a
settlement between the two sides.”
This approach emphasizes that the mediator, as
a third part which has no conflict of interest with
any party included in the conflict, intervenes in the
conflict with an aim to bring the overall conflict
to a manageable point. In another definition Sisk
(1996: 3) suggests that mediation is an effort to stop
violence with any possible means of intervention.
“international mediation deals with the
process of political change: Is it peaceful or
violent? Mediators want to stop the violence
by any means possible. The international
community must be more involved in shaping
the institutions that will ensure an enduring
peace -- the outcomes of political change.”
As different from the previous definition, Sisk
frames mediation mainly within the context of
violent conflicts, and unlike Greig and Diehl, Sisk’s
definition suggests that mediation is a conflict-
ending tool rather than a conflict-ordering one.
Kressel (2006: 727) defines mediation as follows:
“Mediation may be defined as a process
in which disputants attempt to resolve their
differences with the assistance of an acceptable
 8
Diplomacy

third party. The mediator’s objectives are 3. Mediation is a non-coercive, non-violent

typically to help the parties search for a mutually
acceptable solution to their conflict and to
counter tendencies toward competitive win-lose
strategies and objectives. Mediators are most
commonly single individuals, but they also can
be twosomes, threesomes, or even larger groups.”
As seen from this brief review of the literature,
although there exist some nuances between different
definitions, scholars agree on several points about
mediation. Firstly, all definitions of mediation
emphasizes that mediation processes are initiated by a
neutral third party. Secondly, mediator’s main objective
is to facilitate the dialogue between the parties of the
negotiation. In other words, foremost function of the
mediator is to facilitate the contact. Along with these,
providing a new perspective to the parties if the talks
get stuck is also a key task for a mediator.
What are the basic features of a mediation
intervention? A giant in the mediation studies,
Bercovitch goes beyond just proposing a definition
and clarifies the eight characteristics of international
mediation as follows (Bercovitch, 1992: 4-5):
1. Mediation is an extension and continuation of
the parties’ own conflict management efforts.
2. Mediation involves the intervention of an
individual, group or organization into a
dispute between two or more actors.
and ultimately nonbinding form of
intervention.
4. Mediation turns an original bilateral dispute
into triadic interaction of some kind. By
increasing the number of actors from two
to three, mediation effects considerable
structural changes and creates new focal
points for an agreement.
5. A mediator enters a dispute in order to
affect, change, resolve, modify or influence
it in some way.
6. Mediators bring with them, consciously
or otherwise, ideas, knowledge, resources
and interests of their own or of the group
or organization they represent. Mediators
are often important actors with their own
assumptions and agendas about the dispute
in question. International mediators are
both interested and concerned parties.
7. Mediation is a voluntary form of
intervention. This means the parties retain
their control over the outcome (if not always
the process) of their dispute, as well as their
freedom to accept or reject mediation or
mediator’s proposals.
8. Mediation operates on an ad hoc basis only.

figure 8.4 TRNC President Akıncı (C-R), Greek Cypriot leader Anastasiades (C-L), SASG on Cyprus Espen Barth Eide
(2-L), SRSG Elizabeth Spehar (3-L), Greek Cypriot Negotiator Andreas Mavroyannis (2-R), Turkish Cypriot Negotiator
Özdil Nami (3-R) (AA Photo), 2 May2017.
Source: https://www.dailysabah.com/diplomacy/2017/05/02/turkish-cypriot-president-akinci-calls-on-un-to-be-more-
helpful-in-cyprus-talks

187
8
Practice of Diplomacy: Negotiation, Mediation and Diplomatic Agreement
Mediation initiatives has contributed to
the construction of peace agreements, peaceful
solution of several disputes or prevented potential
crises to turn into violent conflicts. Yet, it should
also be emphasized that mediation is also used
as an instrument by the initiator to construct
an international role. The initiator country or
organization for mediation sometimes does so
to have a say in world politics. Role theory of
Foreign Policy Analysis (FPA) literature suggests
that countries build certain national roles for
themselves and conduct their foreign policy
accordingly (Holsti 1970; Walker 1987). In this
regard, we can see that there are certain countries
in contemporary world politics which construct
themselves as natural mediators in crisis situations.
For instance, Norway has played mediator role in
several disputes and its capital Oslo has been home
to several peace talks such as the one between Israel
and Palestine. Within this context, it is fair to
suggest that mediator party also utilizes from the
success of its potential mediation. In another case,
for instance, Canada played a significant role in
the gathering of Ottawa Convention on Ban on
Land Mines (Anderson 2000). As a medium sized
state, Canada has opened itself a space in world
politics by initiating such an important process
which turned into a binding agreement for more
than 140 countries. Small states also take initiative
to mediate in international or domestic crises. For
instance, Switzerland as a “neutral country” for
more than 600 years (Kriesi and Trechsel 2008),
offered mediation to Spanish and Catalonian
parties after emergence of crisis following the
independence referendum in Catalonia in 2017.
Another good example of small state mediation is
the initiative of Algeria in the settlement of Iranian
Hostage Crisis in 1979 (Slim, 1992: 206).
We can mention two main types of mediation:
formal and informal (Berkovich and Jackson,
1997). Formal mediation processes start after the
authorization of a person by usually an international
organization. In formal mediation processes, the
mandate and jurisdiction of the mediator are
determined in the authorization resolution. In such
formal mediation practices, most of the procedural
details of the mediation process are predefined.
Usually, the duration of the mediator’s mandate is
188
specified in the authorization, so that parties would
know the time frame for the settlement of the
problem. This predefined details may contribute to
the parties’ motivation and will for settlement, as
well as they may make a detrimental effect on the
course of the negotiation process and cause parties
to seek a bypass of the mediator especially if they see
the overall negotiation process not serving to their
win-set. There are number of examples for formal
mediation practices. Former president of Finland,
Martti Ahtisaari has served as a mediator in the
settlement of various conflicts varying from conflict
between the Indonesian government and Aceh
region to Kosovo conflict (Ahtisaari, 2008; Perrit,
2010). In fact, Ahtisaari became a prominent figure
in international mediation practices especially after
his retirement from Finnish politics and took
initiative himself to prompt international society
to take more active initiative in the settlement of
international crises. For his efforts, he was awarded
Nobel Peace Prize in 2008.
There have also been cases settled through
informally running mediation processes. Informal
mediation is a mediation practice in which
conflicting parties voluntarily pick a third party
mediator to intervene in the conflict and mediate
the parties (Hare, 1992: 53). Mediator is selected
usually because all conflicting parties attribute
a credibility to her/him and acknowledge her/
his impartiality. The main difference between
formal and informal mediation processes is that
in informal mediation process, the mediator lacks
the economic and political backing enjoyed by the
mediators in formal processes. Therefore, informal
mediation is considered mainly as a dialogue
facilitation initiative rather than providing decisive
and binding consequences (Kleiboerr, 1996).
For instance, the dispute between Argentina and
Uruguay on the Uruguay River is mediated by
the King of Spain (Goldstein and Pevehouse,
2014: 258). The mediation was an informal one.
Yet, the provisions suggested by the mediator
were respected by both parties and the decision
of the World Court in the Hague followed these
provisions and legalized them. In other words, an
informal mediation process led to a formal trial
process in the World Court and turned into a
formal resolution.
 8
Diplomacy

figure 8.5 Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon and Joint UN–Arab League Special Representative for Syria Lakhdar
Brahimi meet with the five permanent members of the Security Council to discuss the second International Conference
on Syria, United Nations, New York, September 27, 2013. UN.
Source: https://www.ipinst.org/2016/11/lost-in-transition-un-mediation-in-libya-syria-and-yemen

It should also be noted that informal mediation
is often preferred by governments when they are
reluctant to disclose the negotiation process to
the public. It is, therefore, a general practice that
negotiation processes with terror organizations
and insurgency groups usually starts with informal
mediation. Following the informal talks, the
negotiations become official when the political
authority believes that the public is prepared to
welcome the talks.
2
Discuss the role of informal
mediation as a dialogue
facilitation initiative.
DIPLOMATIC AGREEMENT
Ultimate aim for negotiation is to reach an
agreement which avoids use of force and bring a
peaceful solution to the problem. Once a successful
mediated negotiation is finalized, the next step is to
officialize the agreed conditions through a diplomatic
agreement of which clauses would be binding
for all signatory parties. A diplomatic agreement
or protocol, in this context, is a binding legal text
produced through negotiations between disputing
parties to institutionalize the conditions agreed.
It would be flawed to limit diplomatic
agreements to settlements of the violent conflict.
Diplomatic agreements may focus a wide array of
issues ranging from peacemaking to visa regimes,
from trade to usage of bordering rivers. We may
examine several types of diplomatic agreements.
One type of diplomatic agreement is multiparty
treaties that regulate a general regime of a certain
practice for the signatories. For instance, the set
of negotiated legal documents under Schengen
Agreement, which introduced a common visa
regime among the EU countries and several
partner countries can be considered as an example
of this type. After a negotiation process, the
member states to the European Union enforced
this diplomatic agreement and committed to a
common visa program. Later, Schengen Agreement
and the visa regime regulated in it was enlarged in a
manner to include several non-EU countries such
as Switzerland and Norway.
Another type of diplomatic agreement is the
type that regulates the conditions for settlement
of a non-violent dispute between or among states.
Such diplomatic agreements emerge after the
negotiation of two states or a group of states which
are the parties of the dispute. For instance, efforts to
govern the regime of international rivers has been
a subject matter to many international diplomatic
agreement. The regime on the use of Nile Basin
is a typical example of a diplomatic agreement
in which a group of regional countries gathered,

189
8
Practice of Diplomacy: Negotiation, Mediation and Diplomatic Agreement

negotiated and signed (Cascao 2008). Yet, it should also be noted that signing of such a diplomatic
agreement does not always guarantee the full compliance of the parties. In quite a few cases, disputes
that are contained through diplomatic agreements recur since one party or multiple parties violate the
clauses of the agreement. Again, the usage of the Nile River is an example of a dispute regulated through a
diplomatic agreement but continues to be a potential threat for conflict among Egypt, Sudan and Ethiopia.
Finally, diplomatic agreements signed after violent conflicts should be noted. World politics have
witnessed a growing number of domestic and regional violent conflicts especially after 1960s, which is a
term decolonization in Africa and elsewhere gained momentum. Many newly independent decolonized
states have struggled with political and economic instability ever since. Especially in 1980s and 1990s,
outbreak of quite a few civil wars caused catastrophic humanitarian situations in many countries including
Rwanda, Angola, Liberia, Sierra Leone and Ivory Coast. In some cases, intervention by international society
came so late that it could not prevent big massacres even genocides as happened in the case of Rwanda
Genocide (Cohen 2007). In some other cases, regional organizations such as Economic Community
of West African States (ECOWAS) and African Union, or United Nations as the global international
organization initiated interventions and mediated the conflicts. After mediation and negotiation
practices, parties agreed on several diplomatic agreements which brought peace. Lomé Peace Accord,
for example, is the peace agreement signed by Sierra Leonean government and Revolutionary United
Front (RUF) and its leader Foday Sankoh in 1999, which ended the civil war in Sierra Leone (Abraham
2001). It is possible to suggest that this type of diplomatic agreements is much more difficult to agree on
compared to any other type of diplomatic agreement. After long standing conflicts which left tremendous
casualties on each party included, sharpened identities and resentments of the respective parties make
detrimental effects on their
motivation to sign a peace
and lead them to seek revenge.
Therefore, peace accords
after long standing conflicts
inevitably have to address
sensitive issues such as power-
sharing in the post-conflict
term, transitional justice,
war crimes and rehabilitation
and reintegration of former
combatants. In the case of
Sierra Leone, for instance,
Foday Sankoh, the leader
of RUF who was against
humanity had to be given
a seat in the post-conflict
interim government to be
convinced to sign the deal.
Hence, the diplomatic
figure 8.6 Australia’s Trade and Investment Minister Andrew Robb and Chinese
agreements that end conflicts
Commerce Minister Gao Hucheng signing the China-Australia Free Trade
have to be supported
Agreement in Canberra on 17 June 2015, witnessed by Prime Minister Tony Abbott.
peacebuilding efforts in the
Photo: Office of the Prime Minister
post-conflict period to obviate
the recurrence of the violence. Source: http://dfat.gov.au/trade/agreements/chafta/news/Pages/signature-of-
the-china-australia-free-trade-agreement.aspx

190

Diplomacy
RATIFICATION OF DIPLOMATIC
AGREEMENTS
Ratification is a final step for an international
diplomatic agreement to be put in practice. In
most cases, international diplomatic agreements are
presented to parliaments for ratification. Copying
this general practice, 87th article of the constitution
of Turkey authorizes the Turkish Grand National
Assembly for the ratification of international
agreements.
Enforcement of diplomatic agreements is also
an important topic to address. When a diplomatic
agreement is signed, the final step for it to be put
into practice is the ratification process. Ratification is
simply the approval of an agreement by the domestic
agents of a country. Ratifying body may vary
depending on the regime of the signatory country.
In absolute monarchies of the medieval world,
ratification was not needed because the committee
signing a diplomatic agreement was directly
authorized by the monarch. Yet, contemporary
global democratic principles rendered parliaments as
the representatives of the people. Therefore, almost in
all liberal democracies, the natural ratification organ
is the parliament. Depending on the constitution
of the country, parliaments ratify international
agreements either with simple or qualified majority.
In some cases, the executive organ may decide to
present the diplomatic agreement to a public vote
8
or referendum. Ratification is an essential procedure
for the activation and realization of a diplomatic
agreement. In fact, many diplomatic agreement
remained ineffective or annulled because they did
not succeed to be ratified. For example, diplomatic
protocols between Turkey and Armenia signed in
2009 regarding the normalization of the relations
between the two countries remained inactive because
neither country brought these protocols to their
respective parliaments and ratified them. Recently in
early 2018, Armenia declared that they cancelled the
protocol unilaterally for it became obvious that both
countries are not ratifying them (ABCNews, March
1, 2018). Another example is about the ratification
process of the agreement between the Colombian
Government and FARC. After more than 50
years of fighting, parties agreed on a peace accord
in 2016. The government of Colombia wanted to
ratify the agreement through a public referendum.
Yet, Colombian people rejected the ratification of
the agreement with a very slight majority, 50.2%.
(BBC, October 3, 2016). Nevertheless, Colombian
government worked through the parliament later
and ratified the agreement.
3
Discuss the emergence of
diplomatic agreements.
191
8
Practice of Diplomacy: Negotiation, Mediation and Diplomatic Agreement

LO 1 Compare the motivations of negotiating

parties in various international negotiations.

The willingness and the motivation of the parties have a direct impact on the outcome of the negotiation.
Yet, motivations of the parties included in a certain negotiation process may vary. Actors may use the
negotiation process as a minor tactic within a greater strategy. In such instances, negotiations may be
seen as a tool to gain some time by the actors. In such cases, actors are not convinced that negotiating
with the counterparty would bring in the desired results that is acceptable. However, it should also
be noted that interests and intentions of the actors are dynamic and may change once they are in a
negotiation process. In several cases, negotiation processes with actors which were quite reluctant and
Summary

saw the whole process in pragmatic terms have been fruitful and ended up with settlements.

LO 2 Analyze how parties of a given negotiation process

form their win-sets for international bargaining.

Win-set is a term coined by Robert Putnam in his famous article that he developed a framework for
foreign policy decision-making (Putnam, 1988). According to Putnam’s framework, win-set of an
actor can be defined as any desirable outcome from an international bargaining process. Any outcome
within the range of its win-set would be considered as gain by the actor. The formation of this win-set,
according to Putnam, is directly related with the domestic political dynamics. Putnam’s framework of
decision-making suggests that foreign policy is not only about the external relations of a country. Rather,
decision-makers play a two-level game in their conduct of foreign policy. Their win-set is formed within
the context of domestic politics and decision-makers are motivated by factors such as succeeding in
the elections and surviving in the office. Therefore, international diplomatic negotiations are inevitably
affected by the domestic political context in respective countries.

LO 3 Note the basic procedures for formal and informal

mediation practices.

Mediation in international crises and disputes is an effective tool of conflict resolution. Many
international crises have been intervened by mediators, so the dialogue between conflicting parties was
facilitated. Two types of mediation can be mentioned: formal and informal. Formal mediation processes
start after the authorization of a person by usually an international organization. In formal mediation
processes, the mandate and jurisdiction of the mediator are determined in the authorization resolution.
Informal mediation is a mediation practice in which conflicting parties voluntarily pick a third party
mediator to intervene in the conflict and mediate the parties. Informal mediation is often preferred by
governments when they are reluctant to disclose the negotiation process to the public.

192
 8
Diplomacy

LO 4 Evaluate the motivations of the mediators in

international conflicts.

Mediation is also used as an instrument by the initiator to construct an international role. The initiator
country or organization for mediation sometimes does so to have a say in world politics. In this regard,
we can see that there are certain countries in contemporary world politics which construct themselves as
natural mediators in crisis situations. For instance, Norway has played mediator role in several disputes
and its capital Oslo has been home to several peace talks such as the one between Israel and Palestine.
It is fair to suggest that mediator party also utilizes from the success of its potential mediation. In
another case, for instance, Canada played a significant role in the gathering of Ottawa Convention

Summary
on Ban on Land Mines. Small states also take initiative to mediate in international or domestic crises.
For instance, Switzerland as a “neutral country” for more than 600 years, offered mediation to Spanish
and Catalonian parties after emergence of crisis following the independence referendum in Catalonia
in 2017. Another good example of small state mediation is the initiative of Algeria in the settlement of
Iranian Hostage Crisis in 1979.

LO 5 Categorize different types of diplomatic

agreements.

Not all diplomatic agreements signed after violent conflicts. Rather, diplomatic agreements may
focus on a wide range of topics. Firstly, multiparty treaties that regulate a general regime of a certain
practice for the signatories is signed after long negotiation processes. For instance, the set of negotiated
legal documents under Schengen Agreement, which introduced a common visa regime among the
EU countries and several partner countries can be considered as an example of this type. Secondly,
some diplomatic agreements regulate the conditions for settlement of a non-violent dispute between
or among states. Such diplomatic agreements emerge after the negotiation of two states or a group of
states which are the parties of the dispute. For instance, efforts to govern the regime of international
rivers has been a subject matter to many international diplomatic agreements. The regime on the use
of Nile Basin is a typical example of a diplomatic agreement in which a group of regional countries
gathered, negotiated and signed. Finally, peace agreements are signed after long lasting violent conflicts.
Regional organizations such as Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS) and African
Union, or United Nations as the global international organization initiate interventions and mediate
the conflicts. After mediation and negotiation practices, parties agree on several diplomatic agreements
which brought peace. Lomé Peace Accord, for example, is the peace agreement signed by Sierra Leonean
government and Revolutionary United Front (RUF) and its leader Foday Sankoh in 1999, which ended
the civil war in Sierra Leone.

LO 6 Examine the different procedures of ratification for

diplomatic agreements.

When a diplomatic agreement is signed, the final step for it to be put into practice is the ratification
process. Contemporary global democratic principles render parliaments as the representatives of the
people. Therefore, almost in all liberal democracies, the natural ratification organ is the parliament.
Depending on the constitution of the country, parliaments ratify international agreements either with
simple or qualified majority. In some cases, the executive organ may decide to present the diplomatic
agreement to a public vote or referendum.

193
8
Practice of Diplomacy: Negotiation, Mediation and Diplomatic Agreement
1 In diplomatic negotiations, parties build a
win-set for their bargaining strategy. Which of the
following statements define the concept of win-set?
a. Win-set is a diplomatic agreement between the
mediator and negotiating parties.
Test Yourself
b. Win-set is the authorization given to the
negotiation committee by the parliament.
c. Win-set of an actor can be defined as any
desirable outcome from an international
bargaining process.
d. Win-set is general title for peace agreements.
e. Win-set is the mediator’s interest in the
intervention to the conflict.
2 Which of the following examples of
negotiation from world politics ended up with
recurrence of violent conflict between parties due
to the failure of the negotiation process?
a. Negotiations between Spain and Catalonian
authorities.
b. Negotiations between Turkey and Armenia.
c. Negotiations between Indonesian Government
and Aceh rebels.
d. Negotiations between Sri Lankan Government
and Tamil Tigers.
e. Negotiations between Iran and IAEA.
3 Which of the following motivation
statements would best define Putnam’s approach
to international negotiations?
a. Actors follow a pure rationalist approach in
international negotiations.
b. Decision-makers are only motivated to follow
the national interest of their countries.
c. Decision-makers tend to avoid risks if they
think it jeopardizes the national interest.
d. International bargaining is affected by the
influence of international organizations.
e. The set of goals for a negotiating actor is formed
through the interplay between domestic and
international politics.
194
4 After violent conflicts, societies suffer from
the effects of long lasting violence. For a stable
peace environment and to prevent recurrence of
violence, which of the following issues do peace
negotiations often focus on?
a. How to disarm, demobilize and reintegrate the
former combatants.
b. How to share country’s natural resources.
c. How to build a stronger military.
d. How to build a liberal market economy.
e. How to privatize public institutions.
5 What is the main disadvantage of the
informal mediation processes vis-à-vis formal
mediation processes?
a. Informal mediation causes more conflict.
b. Informal mediation lacks the political and
economic backing that formal mediation
processes enjoy.
c. Informal mediation initiatives are not respected
by formal institutions.
d. Informal mediation usually does not help to
find a settlement of the conflict.
e. Informal mediation may be manipulated by the
mediator.
6 Which of the following persons and states
did not serve as a mediator in the settlement of an
international conflict so far?
a. Martti Ahtisaari
b. Algeria
c. Canada
d. The King of Spain
e. Iran

Diplomacy
7 Why do states need a diplomatic agreement
following a successful negotiation process?
a. Because diplomatic agreements provide them
more gains.
b. Because they want to become member to
international organizations.
c. Because diplomatic agreements create binding
consequences for all parties, and guarantees the
rights of parties.
d. Because states are not allowed to interact
without agreements.
e. Because diplomatic agreements provide prestige
to them.
8 Ratification is necessary for the activation of a
diplomatic agreement. In several cases, diplomatic
protocols signed by states inactive due to the lack
of ratification. Which of the following examples
can be considered as a diplomatic protocol which
remained inactive due to ratification problem?
a. Nuclear agreement between IAEA and Iran.
b. Nile Basin protocols among Sudan, Egypt and
Ethiopia.
c. Schengen Agreement of Visa Regime.
d. Protocols signed between Turkey and Armenia
on the normalization of relations.
e. Lomé Peace Accords.
8
9 What has been the result of peace talks
between the government of Colombia and FARC?
a. Peace is signed, but the agreement is rejected in
referendum, but Colombian Parliament ratified
Test Yourself
the agreement.
b. Peace is signed, but agreement is not ratified, so
parties restarted to fight.
c. Peace talks failed, no agreement could be reached.
d. Colombian army attacked FARC during the
negotiations and talks stopped.
e. There has been no negotiation between the
parties.
10 Which of the following bodies cannot
be a body for the ratification of the diplomatic
agreements?
a. Parliament
b. Senate
c. Public (through a referendum)
d. Group of intellectuals
e. Monarchs
195
8
Practice of Diplomacy: Negotiation, Mediation and Diplomatic Agreement

If your answer is not E, revisit the part

1. c If your answer is not B, revisit the part 6. e
about mediation examples from the actual
about negotiations.
world politics.

If your answer is not D, revisit the part

2. d 7. c If your answer is not C, revisit the part
about negotiations and examples from the
Answer Key for “Test Yourself”

about diplomatic agreements.

actual world politics.

3. e If your answer is not E, revisit the box 8. e If your answer is not E, revisit the part about
about formation of win-sets. ratification of diplomatic agreements.

If your answer is not A, revisit the part in

4. a If your answer is not A, revisit the box 9. a
which the peace talks between Colombia
about DDR efforts.
and FARC is exemplified.

5. b If your answer is not B, revisit the part about 10. d If your answer is not D, revisit the part
different types of mediation practices. about the ratification of the agreements.

196
 8
Diplomacy

Explain the concept of win-set and discuss how it is related to

domestic politics of a country.

Win-set is a term coined by Robert Putnam in his famous article that he developed
a framework for foreign policy decision-making (Putnam, 1988). According to
Putnam’s framework, win-set of an actor can be defined as any desirable outcome
from an international bargaining process. In other words, any outcome within the
your turn 1

Suggested answers for “Your turn”

range of its win-set would be considered as gain by the actor. The formation of
this win-set, according to Putnam, is directly related with the domestic political
dynamics. Therefore, win-sets that determine the foreign policy agenda of a
country is directly connected with the domestic politics of that country, according
to Putnam’s framework.

Discuss the role of informal mediation as a dialogue

facilitation initiative.

Mediator is selected usually because all conflicting parties attribute a credibility

to her/him and acknowledge her/his impartiality. The main difference between
your turn 2 formal and informal mediation processes is that in informal mediation
process, the mediator lacks the economic and political backing enjoyed by the
mediators in formal processes. Therefore, informal mediation is considered
mainly as a dialogue facilitation initiative rather than providing decisive and
binding consequences.

Discuss the emergence of diplomatic agreements.

Ultimate aim for negotiation is to reach an agreement which avoids use of

force and bring a peaceful solution to the problem. Once a successful mediated
negotiation is finalized, the next step is to officialize the agreed conditions
your turn 3 through a diplomatic agreement of which clauses would be binding for all
signatory parties. A diplomatic agreement or protocol, in this context, is a
binding legal text produced through negotiations between disputing parties
to institutionalize the conditions agreed.

197
8
Practice of Diplomacy: Negotiation, Mediation and Diplomatic Agreement

References
ABCNews, (2018) “Armenia annuls normalization protocols with Turkey.” (Last visit: March 4, 2018). http://
abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory/armenia-annuls-normalization-protocols-turkey-53441075
Abraham, A. (2001). “Dancing with the chameleon: Sierra Leone and the elusive quest for peace”. Journal of
Contemporary African Studies. Vol. 19, Issue 2, pp. 205-228.
Ahtisaari, M. (2008). “Lessons of Aceh peace talks.” Asia Europe Journal. Vol. 6, Issue 1, pp. 9-14.
Anderson, K. (2000). “The Ottawa convention banning landmines, the role of international non-governmental
organizations and the idea of international civil society.” European Journal of International Law. Vol. 11,
Issue 1, pp. 91-120.
Barston, R. P. (2014). Modern Diplomacy. New York: Routledge.
BBC, “Colombia Referendum: Voters reject FARC peace deal. (Last visit: March 4, 2018). http://www.bbc.
com/news/world-latin-america-37537252
Beardsley, K. (2008). “Agreement Without Peace? International Mediation and Time Inconsistency Problems.”
American Journal of Political Science. Vol.52, Issue 4, pp. 723-740.
Bercovitch, J. B. and J. Z. Rubin. (eds.) (1992). Mediation in International Relations: Multiple Approaches
to Conflict Management. London: Palgrave Macmillan.
Bercovitch, J. B. And R. Jackson. (1997). International conflict: A chronological encyclopedia of conflicts
and their management 1945-1995. Washington: Washington Quarterly.
Cascão, A. E. (2008). “Ethiopia: challenges to Egyptian hegemony in the Nile Basin.” Water Policy, Vol.10,
Issue 2, pp. 13-28.
Cohen, J. (2007). One-hundred days of silence: America and the Rwanda genocide. Rowman & Littlefield.
Cooper, A. F. and B. Hocking. (2000). “Governments, Non-Governmental Organisations and the Re-calibration
of Diplomacy.” Global Society. Vol. 14, Issue 3, pp. 361-373.
Crenshaw, M. (1981). “The Causes of Terrorism.” Comparative Politics. Vol. 13, Issue 4, pp. 379-399.
Dinar, S. (2000). “Negotiations and International Relations: A Framework for Hydropolitics.” International
Negotiation. Issue 5, pp. 375-407.
Galtung, Johan. 2015. “Peace, Conflict and Violence.” Conflict, Peace, Security and Development. London:
Routledge, pp. 25-38.
Goldstein, J.S and Pevehouse, J.C. (2014). International Relations, 10th Edition, New York: Pearson.
Greig, M. J. and P. F. Diehl. (2012). International Mediation. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Hare, A.P. (1992). “Informal Mediation by Private Individuals.” Berkovich, J., J.Z. Rubin (eds.) Mediation in
International Relations: Multiple Approaches to Conflict Management. London: Palgrave Macmillan,
pp. 52-63.
Holsti, K. J. (1970). “National role conceptions in the study of foreign policy.” International Studies Quarterly.
Vol. 14, Issue 3, pp. 233-309.
Kleiboer, M. (1996). “Understanding Success and Failure of International Mediation.” The Journal of Conflict
Resolution. Vol. 40, Issue 2, pp. 360-389.
Kressel, K. (2006). “Mediation Revisited.” Deutsch, M., P. T. Coleman, E.C. Marcus (eds.) The Handbook of
Conflict Resolution. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Neumann, P.R. (2007. “Negotiating with Terrorirsts.” Foreign Affairs. Vol. 86, Issue 1, pp. 128-138.

198
 8
Diplomacy

Niemann, A. (2004). “Between communicative action and strategic action: the Article 113 Committee and the
negotiations on the WTO Basic Telecommunications Services Agreement” Journal of European Public
Policy. Vol. 11, Issue 3, pp. 379-407.
Partlett, D. F. and R. L. Weaver. (2011). “BP Oil Spill: Compensation, Agency Costs, and Restitution.” Wash.
& Lee L. Review. Issue 68, 1341.
Perritt, H. H. (2010). The road to independence for Kosovo: a chronicle of the Ahtisaari plan. New York,
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Putnam, R. (1988). “Diplomacy and Domestic Politics: the Logic of Two Level Games.” International
Organization. Vol. 42, Issue 3, pp. 427-460.
Raeymaekers, T., K. Menkhaus and K. Vlassenroot. (2008). “State and non-state regulation in African protracted
crises: governance without government?” Afrika Focus. Vol. 21, Issue 2, pp. 7-21.
Rowe, C. (2011). Regional Representations in the EU: Between Diplomacy and Interest Mediaton. New
York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Saunders, P. C. and Kastner, S. L. (2009). “Bridge over troubled water? Envisioning a China-Taiwan peace
agreement”. International Security, Vol. 33, Issue 4, pp. 87-114.
Sebenius, J. K. and M. K. Singh. (2013). “Is a nuclear deal with Iran possible? An analytical framework for the
Iran nuclear negotiations.” International Security. Vol. 37, Issue 3, pp. 52-91.
Sisk, T. D. (2009). International Mediation in Civil Wars. London, New York: Routledge.
Slim, R. M. (1992). “Small-State Mediation in International Relations: The Algerian Mediation of the
Iranian Hostage Crisis.” Berkovich, J., J.Z. Rubin (eds.) Mediation in International Relations: Multiple
Approaches to Conflict Management. London: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 206-231.
Smit, C.R. and D. Snidal (eds.) (2008). The Oxford Handbook of International Relations. Oxford, New
York: Oxford University Press.
United Nations DDR Resource Centre: http://www.unddr.org/
Walker, S. G. (1987). “Role Theory and the Origins of Foreign Policy.” New Directions in the Study of
Foreign Policy, 269-284.
Weiss, G. (2011). The cage: The fight for Sri Lanka and the last days of the Tamil Tigers. Random House.
Woolford, A. and R. S. Ratner. (2008). Informal Reckonings: Conflict Resolution in Mediation, Restorative
Justice and Reperations. Park Square, Milton Park: Routledge-Cavendish.
Zartman, W. and G. O. Faure (eds.) (2005). Escalation and Negotiation in International Conflicts.
Cambridge, New York: Cambridge University Press.

199